The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Employment RegulationLaw of Work Archive

Should Wage Stealing Bosses Be Imprisoned?

by David Doorey August 3, 2018
written by David Doorey August 3, 2018

I have reported in the past on a number of deadbeat employers in Ontario who have been imprisoned for failure to comply with orders to pay wages to their employees.

In 2013, one Peter Check was imprisoned for 90 days for failure to pay nearly $70,000 in wages in a scheme in which he would open pool cleaning businesses each summer, have employees work for him all summer, and then disband the company and claim poverty and inability to pay the wages owed.  Check refused to pay and the court ordered jail plus an additional $15,000 fine.

In 2012, Steven Blondin was sent to jail for 90 days for repeated violations of the ESA and he was ordered to pay $280,000 in wages and fines.

This week, an Ontario Court sentenced Yuk Yee Ellen Pun, the owner/director of a now bankrupt Toronto restaurant chain to 90 days in jail for failure to pay nearly $700,000 in wages and benefits to 68 employees.

In all these cases, the guilty owners had compiled a series of Orders to Pay and

Should Wage Stealing Employers Be Jailed?

Should Wage Stealing Employers Be Jailed?

ignored them.  The threat of additional fines did not provoke payment and the accused argued they had no money.  In these cases, prison is a last option available in Section 132 of the ESA.  It is used infrequently, in outlier cases such as these.

Years ago, I argued on this blog that the state should prosecute deadbeat employers more frequently and make the prison threat more poignant.  When employers skip out on wages it causes real hardship to the victims.  From the employee’s perspective, there is little practical difference between an employer who refuses to pay $10,000 in wages and being robbed of $10,000 in a holdup.  If the employer has been given an opportunity to make good but fails to do so, prison is an appropriate response to signal that the state treats wage theft as a serious offence.

I make some additional proposals back then:

Restrictions on the Right to Own and Operate Future Businesses

I would go further and restrict those convicted of violating the ESA from registering new companies or acting as an officer of a corporation in the future.  Their name should be registered with the Companies Branch so that they are flagged whenever their name appears as a principal on an incorporation filing or business registration.  This bar could be lifted once all outstanding amounts have been paid, and after a period of time has passed, but even then, these people should be subject to special inspections and reporting requirements, because they have demonstrated they are high risk employers. Acting as a principal of a business is a great responsibility, and people who demonstrate a pattern of law-breaking behaviour have no business running businesses or serving as a Director.

Requirement to Disclose History of Wage Theft to Job Applicants

I would also require employers convicted of wage theft to disclose to all future job applicants that the company has been convicted previously of violating employee protections legislation.   This requirement could be lifted after a period of time with no ESA violations.  This information would give job applicants the opportunity to look elsewhere, to take precautions, or to ‘bargain’ a higher wage rate to offset the added risks. To use the language of our neoclassical friends, information that the employer violates wage laws is relevant to the marketplace, but there is no market incentive for employers to disclose it.  Therefore, this is a textbook example of the need for information disclosure legislation to correct information asymmetries in labour markets.  We allow employers to ask employees to disclose if they have been convicted of a criminal offence so employers can refuse to hire them.  The theory is that an employer should have the information to decide if it wants to hire someone convicted of a crime. We should also require employers to disclose when they have been found guilty of violating employee protection legislation.

Issues for Discussion
1.   Do you think imprisonment for executives, owners, and directors for wage theft is too harsh a sanction?
2.  What do you think of my additional proposals?  What arguments would you make against them?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
The Back to Class Act (York University): A Quick Summary
next post
Professor Hugh Collins (Oxford) on Redefining Worker Status in Employment Law

You may also like

Reforming Non-Compete Law: A Cross Border Perspective

March 3, 2022

The Problem With Ontario’s Proposed Gig Worker Law...

February 28, 2022

Can Human Rights Law Help Workers Fired for...

February 18, 2022

Will Conservatives Add “Vaccine Status” to Human Rights...

February 9, 2022

Is UFCW’s Mysterious “Agreement” With Uber Lawful?

January 27, 2022

Would the Recommendations in Ontario’s New Report on...

December 10, 2021

The New European Platform Work Directive Through a...

December 9, 2021

Why is Alberta Making Workplaces Less Safe? Alberta...

December 1, 2021

COVID Vaccination Policies in the Workplace: How It’s...

November 23, 2021

Uber and Lyft Suspended a Labour Activist from...

November 19, 2021

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 329 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
7h

Well, more gravy for employment lawyers to keep arguing this silly point.

The court deciding not to dispose of the main issue everyone wants clarified is one of those matters that is impossible to explain to a non-lawyer. Contrary to normal common sense.

Sean Bawden@SeanBawden

@TheLawofWork Decides not to answer the question everyone wanted it to answer. Resolves appeal on basis of appropriateness using R. 21 to bring motion before the ONSC.

Boo.

Reply on Twitter 1524858398898003968Retweet on Twitter 1524858398898003968Like on Twitter 15248583988980039682Twitter 1524858398898003968
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
8h

What did OCA decide? I was doing this instead.

Link to decision?

Sean Bawden@SeanBawden

The ONCA's decision in Taylor today is like scratching a lottery ticket that proclaims "winner every time," only to reveal "try again."

Reply on Twitter 1524855509081374731Retweet on Twitter 1524855509081374731Like on Twitter 15248555090813747311Twitter 1524855509081374731
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
13h

This should be an interesting program, joint program in #climate and #labour offered by U of Toronto and U of Montreal through @CRIMT2013

I’ll be speaking in Toronto on just transitions and the law. Still time to register.

http://www.crimt.net/en/eess2022_programme/

Reply on Twitter 1524774620733243393Retweet on Twitter 15247746207332433931Like on Twitter 15247746207332433933Twitter 1524774620733243393
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.