Question about employee wages???

[blueline]

I know someone who recenty started a part-time job cleaning office buildings in the evenings. The cleaning company was to pay her $8.00/hr for 3 hours per night to do the clean. She was also told, (not in writing) that if she finished in less than 3 hours she would still receive the equivalent of 3 hours pay.

The first pay period goes by, she logs in a little over 2 hours per night through some type of telephone payroll system. She gets her first pay for two weeks and all looks good. It was based on a full 3 hours per night even though she only clocked in for 2 hours.

Next pay period, she does the same thing, take about 2 hours per night and expects the same earnings as before. She gets her pay and it is considerably less that expected. She complains and the company tells her she was told they would be reviewing the job at some point and adjusting the earnings if it was only a 2 hr job for her. This person swears this was never mentioned, only that she would be paid 3 hours work every night regardless of how much less it took. So her earnings have been reduced, contrary to what she was told during her interview and is now based on clocked-in time and not on 3 hrs guaranteed.

Well, she told them to shove it up their ass and is wondering if anything can be done? If this company was going to change her wages after she had started to work there, isn't she entitled to be told?

 

[Never Compromised]

I know someone who recenty started a part-time job cleaning office buildings in the evenings. The cleaning company was to pay her $8.00/hr for 3 hours per night to do the clean. She was also told, (not in writing) that if she finished in less than 3 hours she would still receive the equivalent of 3 hours pay.
Well, she told them to shove it up their ass and is wondering if anything can be done? If this company was going to change her wages after she had started to work there, isn't she entitled to be told?

Unless it has been changed, an employer must pay for a minimum 3 hour shift. But going to court to recover $8 makes no sense at all.

 

[blueline]

Unless it has been changed, an employer must pay for a minimum 3 hour shift. But going to court to recover $8 makes no sense at all.

Agreed, however, she now may get a hard time regarding her EI benefits. She was receiving benefits and doing this part time job to help out. Now she is going to have to explain why she left a job and is worried it may affect her benefits.

 

[greenii]

she should of kept workin but taken her time and call in the phone system at 3 hours.

 

[Keebler Elf]

She should contact the Ministry of Labour if she feels there's been a breach of the Employment Standards Act. They normally assist employees who are being screwed by their employers. She might not have to go to court at all.

Does she have anything in writing?

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/index.html

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/factsheets/fs_claim.html

 

[Papi Chulo]

she should work more slowly next time

 

[xix]

No

she should work slower next time

She should have reported that she worked 3 hours and not 2. What I used to do is work that time and the last hour I take my TIME and not SURF the net. I clock out 5mins passed the time and no one was the wiser.

 

[blueline]

While the replies about taking her time, slowing down, etc., make sense, the problem is just that this place changed the rules on her and decided not to tell her. When they told her she would get 3 hrs pay if it took less time, she just took it as an incentive to work harder, get the job done quicker and get out of there on her way home so she still has an evening to enjoy.

It just seems very unethical of them to take money away and not bother to tell her they had changed the wage structure. Especially when she went through the first pay period clocking in 2 hours or so of actual time and wasn't questioned on it. So she carried on the same way for the next two weeks then saw her pay and it was much less than the previous pay. I know she was only there a very short time and there was nothing in writing, but as I mentioned, now she is going to have to tell the Employment office why she quit. I would think this is a good enough reason.

 

[Fabulous]

Unless it has been changed, an employer must pay for a minimum 3 hour shift. But going to court to recover $8 makes no sense at all.

Compromised is right, AN EMPLOYER MUST PAY HER FOR 3 HOURS MINIMUM, even if she stands around and does nothing or goes home.

 

[Hard Idle]

If it's a regular job, they must pay a minimum of 3 hours for showing up.

She should make a complaint and dress it with allegations of harassment, unsafe conditions, racism or something. I've heard of some people from my former workplaces who sat at home and continued to draw pay while waiting for their greivance to be processed. Recently a lady at my current company who had a legitimate wrongful dismissal case was given 4 weeks pay as part of a settlemant to not make a complaint.

If confronted by somebody who appears to know how to work the system, I believe most small and medium sized employers will back down. It's cheaper to pay what they owe than risk extra costs. It's also better to pay what they owe than to explain to their client why a few thousand dollars worth of computer hardware is missing....

 

[tboy]

Could someone post a link to the employee standards act where it states the 3 hr minimum? I'd like to read that....

Nonetheless, if she was receiving EI benefits, and was working, this could screw up her getting anymore benefits.

In addition, isn't the minimum wage over 8 an hour now?

Couple that with the fact that who in their right mind would go to the time and expense of getting to work for only $16.00 or even $24.00 a night? Hell, it would cost her $4.00 just to take the TTC.........

 

[MarkII]

Compromised is right, AN EMPLOYER MUST PAY HER FOR 3 HOURS MINIMUM, even if she stands around and does nothing or goes home.

Curious...does that apply in the first 90 days ...what used to be called the probationary period?

Not sure how it's phrased now.

 

[Moraff]

Compromised is right, AN EMPLOYER MUST PAY HER FOR 3 HOURS MINIMUM, even if she stands around and does nothing or goes home.

I believe you are incorrect in this. I found this on http://www.worksmartontario.gov.on.ca/scripts/default.asp?contentID=1-3-2&actionID=print

What happens if I go into work but I'm sent home after working less than three hours?

If you regularly work more than three hours a day and you are required to report to work, but work less than three hours, you must be paid whichever of the following amounts is the highest:

* three hours at the minimum wage
* the employee's regular wage for the time worked.

For example, if you are paid $10.00 an hour and work only two hours, you are entitled to three hours at minimum wage (e.g., $7.75 x 3 = $23.25) instead of two hours at your regular wage (10.00 x 2 = $20.00). This is called the "three-hour rule."

You should note, however, that this rule doesn't apply to:

* students (including students 18 years of age and over)
* employees whose regular shift is three hours or less.
* situations where work stops because of certain types of causes beyond the employer's control, such as a fire or power failure.

 

[elmufdvr]

isn't min wage more than 8 dollars???? my girl friend did some cleaning of offices.. she was paid 9 dollars cash... 4 hour shifts5 days a week

 

[tboy]

isn't min wage more than 8 dollars???? my girl friend did some cleaning of offices.. she was paid 9 dollars cash... 4 hour shifts5 days a week

I thought so too but after checking the employee standards act website it is $8.00 per hour in most cases, less for those serving alcohol and students. (Not those serving students, students who are employed for a specific job lol).

 

[elmufdvr]

yea..she told me about it... hahahahahah... we still laugh at the trophy you have won from the smallest dick contest on the Stern show....

 

[tboy]

yea..she told me about it... hahahahahah... we still laugh at the trophy you have won from the smallest dick contest on the Stern show....

Not to get off topic but did you SEE those poor slobs? (I would have said "guys" but considering what they had in their paints, that'd be stretching it lol).

 

[CapitalGuy]

Who was it that told her she could get 3 hours pay for 2 hours work? Her boss, or a co-worker who was not authorized to make that kind of agreement with her? Sounds like she's trying to scam her employer by getting paid an extra hour per "shift". My apologies to her if that's not the case.

Even if she's not, I don't think she should complain about being paid for the time she worked; it is an hourly-wage job, after all, which means 2 hours work equals 2 hours pay. Certainly the company can't be expected to subsidize its workers for work they don't do? Extrapolate her circumstances to the rest of the company's workforce and its hard to argue they don't have the right to try and keep costs down by paying people only for the work they actually do.

 

[Keebler Elf]

She was also told, (not in writing) that if she finished in less than 3 hours she would still receive the equivalent of 3 hours pay.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Moraff]

But apparently they believe they also told her that the job would be reviewed.

That's the trouble with nothing being in writing, it'll come down to a she said/they said argument.

That being said, she probably has an argument that the company did pay her 3 hours a night for the first pay period and since there's nothing in writing to indicate that the company was going to review the job the ruling may fall in her favour.

But since she apparently quit after the second pay period is it worth the fight to get the few dollars "owing"?