Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Can an Employee Be Dismissed for Working Through Her Break?

by David Doorey January 18, 2013
written by David Doorey January 18, 2013

A decision released this week by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal provides an opportunity to discuss an issue that baffles many HR students and practitioners.  How can an employer be responsible for hours worked by an employee that they did not authorize?
The decision is really about unlawful reprisals under the Human Rights Code.  But the facts ae interesting.  The employee was dismissed in part for working through her break.  The Tribunal notes that it is important for employers to be able to strongly enforce breaks because of their liability under the ESA for all time worked by employees, authorized or otherwise. 
Check out the case, which involves an employee of Banana Republic at Square One mall in Mississauga.  It’s called Shettleworth v. GAP (Canada).
Facts
The EE was a fanstastic salesperson, winning awards for her sales levels.  However, she was given a “final written warning” about her abrupt behaviour with coworkers and for ‘working off the clock’, meaning she would punch out for her breaks, but then return to the floor and work.  After receiving this warning, the EE filed a human rights complaint alleging that she was being singled out for special adverse treatment due to her race.   Before a hearing was held into the complaint, the EE was terminated. 
She had violated the Final Warning.  In particular, she had worked during her  break to finish serving a customer before asking her supervisor if she could do so.  The supervisor gave her permission, but by that point, she had already been working off the clock for 10 minutes.  Also, she had given out coupons to customers after the date had passed to distribute those coupons.
Issue:  Was the dismissal a retaliation for filing a human rights complaint?
Tribunal’s Ruling:
The EE was dismissed for violating the Final Warning, not because she had filed a human rights complaint.  Section 8 of the Code prohibits reprisals:

8.  Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act, and to refuse to infringe the right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

The Tribunal noted that this section requires the employee to establish that part of the employer’s intention was to punish the employee for filing a human rights complaint.  Motive matters in a reprisal allegation, unlike in a case of discrimination on the basis of a prohibited ground.
Here, the Tribunal found that the breach of the Final Warning was the reason for the dismissal.  The fact that a supervisor granted the EE permission to work through her break didn’t change the fact that she had already took it upon herself to do so before she got around to asking for permission.  Also, the fact that other employees also distributed the coupons past the expiry date, and that the EE’s boss at the store wasn’t even aware of the expiry date, did not change the fact that the EE violated a rule.  In short, there were business reasons for dismissing the EE unrelated to the human rights complaint.
Discussion
This  interesting part of this case is the employer’s treatment of breaks.  Canada’s banks are buried in nasty class action litigation because employees claim that they worked through breaks and after their scheduled hours to balance their floats, and  complete other necessary tasks.  The banks have argued, among other claims, that these hours were unauthorized and therefore the bank is not responsible.  Here, the employer took the position that it had a right to fire an employee for working through a break, because otherwise it could be liable for breached of the ESA. 
The Tribunal agreed with this point in finding that this was the real reason for the dismissal, and not a reprisal for filing a human rights complaint  (see para. 26). 
Look at Section 20 of the ESA.  It requires a break every of 30 minutes every 5 hours.  Section 22 then requires overtime pay for any hours worked more than 44 in a week, and Section 17 prohibits an employee from working more than 8 hours in a day (unless some other longer day is specified), and 48 hours total in a week.
It is no defense for an employer to say “we didn’t ask her to work” through her break or to consent to her working longer hours.  That’s because Section 6 of Regulation 285/01  to the ESA makes clear that “work” is performed under the ESA when it is “in fact performed by an employee although a term of the contract of employment expressly forbids or limits hours of work or requires the employer to authorize hours of work in advance”. 
This Section is explained in the ESA Policy Manual as follows:

“Section 6(1)(a)(i) states that work is deemed to be performed where work is done and the employer has permitted or suffered the work to be done.  The purpose is to indicate that it is not necessary that the employer have explicitly agreed to or approved of the employee doing the work.  The employer is considered to have permitted work to be done where it fails actively to prevent the employee from performing work. …
 Section 6(1)(a)(ii)…establishes that work is deemed to be performed when it is in fact performed, even though the employment contract prohibited the performance of the work or the contract required the employee to obtain approval of the employer to perform the work and such approval was not obtained.  …
 For example, work was deemed to be performed where the employee’s actual hours of work exceeded those for which the employee was scheduled (Re Weiche-Huttenkofer Corp. Ltd.), and where the employee performed work that was not authorized in advance as required by the employer (Re 469754 Ontario Ltd.).  The fact that the work performed by the employee was unnecessary (i.e., it was not required to be done) does not render s. 6(1) inapplicable (see Re Keyes Supply Co. Ltd.); nor does the fact that the work was unsatisfactory (see Re Living Institute and Re Elgin Lumber & Packaging Corp. Ltd.).”

Questions for Consideration
 Do you agree with the law’s approach, which leaves employers’ liable for work performed by an employee even if the work was not authorized by the employer?
Why is the law designed in this way?
What steps should an employer take to ensure that employees work only their scheduled hours and nothing more?
 

3 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Can an Employer Prohibit Tattoos and Piercings?
next post
Reflecting on the Rand Formula as Ontario's Tories Target Their Union Foes

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
2h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
2h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923165Like on Twitter 13646239761740923168Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
3h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • 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
  • 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.