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

Court Permits Class Action Scotiabank for Unpaid Wages to Proceed

by David Doorey March 11, 2010
written by David Doorey March 11, 2010

Scotia Bank was in the news yesterday after it reported almost a billion dollars in profit for the first quarter of 2010!   Of course, one way to make a profit is to get your workers to work long hours and not pay them for it.  Which brings me to the second reason Scotia Bank has been in the news lately.  It failed recently in its attempt to block a class action complaint from being certified by the courts.  In Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia, an Ontario court certified the class action on behalf Scotia Bank’s personal banking officers, financial advisors, and small business account managers for unpaid overtime under the Canada Labour Code.  A different judge of the same court refused to certify a similar action against CIBC last year, so the Scotia Bank decision is a bit of a surprise.  I posted the pleadings and the decision in that case last summer.
Both the CIBC (the bank won) and the Scotia Bank (bank lost) are being appealed, and it is very probable that the issue of the certification of a class action for unpaid overtime will end up before the Supreme Court before this is all done.  The banks have the money (see profit story above) to draw out this litigation for years and years, and they probably will.
I can’t describe the new Scotia Bank decision any better than Jeffrey Sack and our friends at Lancaster House publishing, so take a look at their excellent summary of the case here.
So far, the parties have only been fighting about whether the employees can bring one representative lawsuit on behalf of all of the employees who claim they were not paid for overtime.  The question of whether the employees actually did work overtime for which they were not paid  has not yet made it before the court.  Of course, any individual employee could bring a personal claim for overtime pay at any time.  But virtually no employees make overtime pay claims against their current employers.  Why do you think that is?  For my employment law students, why is it so important for the employees that they be able to bring their overtime claims forward as a collective, rather than individually?
The judge in Scotia Bank was clearly not impressed with the employer’s argument that overtime needed to receive pre-approval from management, since in his view, the law is clear that overtime pay must be paid whenever someone works overtime.  Of interest is his comments about the vulnerability of workers:

While an employer certainly has the right to protect itself against unrequested and unwanted overtime hours, it is arguable that the balance of power in the workplace is such that the protection of the employee against working unpaid hours should be the paramount consideration. It is also arguable that the employer has a responsibility to design, implement and enforce overtime policies and procedures on a system-wide basis to prevent abuses.

In other words, an overtime policy that puts the onus on workers to obtain prior approval for overtime in order to complete work the employer expects them to complete ignores the fact that employees will be concerned that their requests for overtime will be looked upon unfavourably by their managers and could effect their job security.  An alternative model would put the onus on employers to not permit workers to work overtime–i.e. to order them to go home to their families–or to pay them for any hours worked.
A theme in these bank overtime cases is that there is a systemic HR policy that at once tells employees they can’t work overtime, but at the same time tells them they shouldn’t leave the workplace until all of their work is done.  The claim is that the bank managers know the employees are working overtime, but they pretend that the workers are doing so without authorization or because they are just volunteering to stay a bit late.  The Canada Labour Code (section 174) is very clear that overtime is payable whenever an employer is “required or permitted to work” overtime.
What do you HR experts/students think about these cases?  Have the banks acted properly in their handling of employee overtime?
UPDATE: Scotiabank Loses Bid to Overturn Certification of Class Action.

7 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
The Sefton Lecture is March 25th: Don Drummond
next post
Do Consumers Pay More for Socially Responsible Products?

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 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@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·
24 Feb

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.