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

City of Toronto Violates ESA, Ordered to Pay Employees $5 Million in Back Wages

by David Doorey April 5, 2011
written by David Doorey April 5, 2011

Politicians these days like to make big promises to cut public sector pay.  It’s politically popular to cast all public sector workers as lazy, overpaid deadweight.   In Toronto, a Mayor got elected in no small measure because of his promise to attack City employees.  Often this narrative is directed at the governments’ unionized workers, but nonunion workers are not exempt.   In 2009, the City of Toronto council (under Mayor Miller) decided they would prefer not to pay some $5 million in  annual bonuses required by the employment contracts of its nonunion, managerial employees.  So the Council canceled the payments.  The employees filed an employment standards complaint.  The employees won, and now the City needs to pay the bonuses.  Here is a Toronto Star piece discussing the decision.
Here is the Employment Standards Officer’s decision
The key to the decision is the fact that “wages” (section 1 definitions) in the Employment Standards Act includes any “monetary remuneration payable by an employer to an employee under the terms of an employment contract, oral or written, express or implied”. In other words, a term of the employment contract requiring payment of a bonus becomes enforceable under the ESA, since Section 11 requires employers to pay “all wages” to employees.
The manager’s contracts included a requirement for the employer to pay a performance bonus of up to 3% for 2008 if employees met some benchmark performance standards for the year, subject to the City approving the budget for that year the bonuses would be paid (2009).  In this case, the employees earned the bonuses for the year 2008, and the Council approved the 2009 budget in March 2009.  Thus, the preconditions in the employment contract for payment of the bonus were satisfied, and the bonuses became due.  The attempt by the City to later (in April 2009) rescind the bonuses was illegal and a breach of the employment contract and the ESA.
In the Star piece, Councillor Peter Milczyn is quoted as follows:  “It was removed after they had earned it, and we knew at the time that it was a problematic decision.”  If the employer knew the decision to cancel the bonuses was problematic, why did they go through with it?  Politics, I presume.  Miller was trying to look like he was taking action on public sector wages, and the decision did manage to defer these costs til now.
Mayor Ford, for all his whining about overpaid City employees, has approved a 2.25% raise for these same managerial employees.  There’s no great secret  why Ford and his gravy-cutting buds on Council are now sucking up to the nonunion City employees.  Next year, when Ford locks out garbage collectors,  child car workers, and other city administrators, guess who will be expected to work ridiculously long hours picking up the slack and answering angry phone calls for “taxpayers”?  You got it:  the nonunion managers.
What do you think employee morale is like at  the City these days?

1 comment
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
The Annual "Sunshine List" Fuss
next post
Do Corporate Tax Cuts Create Jobs?

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·
23h

@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 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24h

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 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

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.