Question about employee wages???

[zog]

If this is true...

Unless it has been changed, an employer must pay for a minimum 3 hour shift.

I'm not aware of this rule. However, if it is truly a legal obligation for any employer, then she has a case to make to the Ministry of Labour. While it may seem silly to make a fuss over $8, she might actually get re-instated at the appropriate wage or, at least, have appropriate paperwork to qualify for EI because the termination of her position was due to actions of her employer.

If the statement about 3 hour minimum shift is not part of the law then she's out of luck. Unfortunately, a verbal statement made during an interview won't hold up if she didn't get a written commitment.

 

[Moraff]

I'm not aware of this rule. However, if it is truly a legal obligation for any employer, then she has a case to make to the Ministry of Labour. While it may seem silly to make a fuss over $8, she might actually get re-instated at the appropriate wage or, at least, have appropriate paperwork to qualify for EI because the termination of her position was due to actions of her employer.

If the statement about 3 hour minimum shift is not part of the law then she's out of luck. Unfortunately, a verbal statement made during an interview won't hold up if she didn't get a written commitment.

As I posted earlier.... Since her regular shift was 3 hours or less she doesn't qualify for that rule.

 

[blueline]

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.

Human Resources told her she would be paid for 3 hours a night when she was hired. It was also that same person who told her after the first pay period that she will now be paid only for time worked. Sounds a little like they are making up rules as they go along. They are also now telling her the supervisor is finding other jobs for her to do to keep her there longer. These jobs weren't included in her training.

Funny, she spent 5 days training with the supervisor who saw her work, inspected her work at the end of the shift, knew she was clocking out after a little over 2 hours, yet never opened her mouth. So that gives a person the impression all is well and all is okay so why would they change anything. If there was a concern someone should have spoken with her before it got to this point.

That is just not ethical, IMO, to change a pay structure after you have already started working, already received a pay based on the HR info that 3 hrs pay will be allowed, then not tell the person.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Human Resources told her she would be paid for 3 hours a night when she was hired. It was also that same person who told her after the first pay period that she will now be paid only for time worked.

They are also now telling her the supervisor is finding other jobs for her to do to keep her there longer. These jobs weren't included in her training.

She can't have it both ways. With this additional info, I think the only thing she's entitled to are the extra hours on her first paycheck. They told her the hours would be reviewed, they were, and they communicated this to her.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that employers don't want to pay employees for 3 hours when they're only doing 2 hours of work (even if the amount of work they're doing is actually 3 hours worth).

This is a problem with many employers; they just don't "get it" that some people have an incentive to work faster/harder/more efficiently if they know they get to finish early without losing pay. Employers tend to pile on more work, which just causes the efficient employees to say, "WTF?", and slow down to the same pace as everyone else.

It takes a relatively sophisticated and progressive employer to be able to accurately gauge how much work is "normal" for an hour and then allow their employees to complete that amount of work at their own pace (provided the quality of work is there).

 

[Keebler Elf]

... she might actually get re-instated at the appropriate wage or, at least, have appropriate paperwork to qualify for EI because the termination of her position was due to actions of her employer.

Doubtful for the former, likely for the latter (if she was in fact terminated).

The Ministry would likely help her get her wages back and they might also help her get a minimum 3 hours of work for showing up, but beyond that the employer can just terminate the employment relationship, give her notice or pay-in-lieu (which is next to nothing in this case), and move on. She's not entitled to the job and there's no discrimination under the Human Rights Code here.

 

[blueline]

She can't have it both ways. With this additional info, I think the only thing she's entitled to are the extra hours on her first paycheck. They told her the hours would be reviewed, they were, and they communicated this to her.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my explanation, but HR did not tell her they would review the hours. They claim they did, but it is a he said - she said deal now. My friend says why would she clock out before 3 hours was up if she knew she wouldn't be paid for the full 3 hours. Of course she would slow down and make sure she was there the whole time.

I just keep going back to why was she paid for 3 hours work during the first pay period, her supervisor knew this, saw her work each night, never said anything to her, then next pay she gets hit with this without any word from anyone.

For the amount of time she spent there (4 weeks) and the amount of money we are talking about, it is not worth it to take any action. Her concern is just what to tell them at the EI office, that's all. Having said that, she is awaiting a job offer from another employer as it seems pretty certain she is in.

A lot of good replies, thanks. I just still believe this company was wrong by not speaking to her before they went and changed the pay structure. If they did that, she wouldn't have had a problem and likely would still be working there. Then there was that comment that sticks in her mind that HR made to her that 'we don't screw people out of their money, we don't work that way, we will adjust your hourly rate to give you the equivalent of 3 hours pay'. Can't get more clear than that.