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

The Peculiar Legal Treatment of Tips in Employment Standards Law

by David Doorey May 31, 2012
written by David Doorey May 31, 2012

There’s  a story in the Star today about a grievance filed by unionized employees of the Four Seasons, who have been terminated upon closing of the hotel.  They are mad because they feel the employer is ripping them off in light of their many years of service.  One 70 year old, 33 year service employee will receive $21,000 in ‘severance’, reports the article.  The employer argues that “in legal terms” it is being generous, by which it means it is giving the workers more than the minimum required by the ESA.
An interesting issue in this story is the fact that the employer based its calculation on the employee’s base wage, excluding any estimate for tips.  Tips amount to a large portion of earnings in the hotel and restaurant industry.  For example, the story reports that one worker earned $80,000 last year, though his base wage was only $19000 of that amount.   If accurate, this means his income is 3/4 tips, 1/4 base wage.  The employer’s position appears to be (based only on what I read in the story) that only base wage counts in assessing the amount of severance pay required (the $19,000) and not tips.
Is that true?
I can’t say that I have ever had to consider this issue before. Let’s work through it together, and please anyone correct me if I’m wrong about this.
1.  Begin by looking at what ‘severance’ pay means. Section 64 says that an employee who is severed must be paid ‘severance’ pay.  Four Seasons will have a payroll of greater $2.5 million or more, so any employee with greater than 5 years service would be entitled to severance pay.  Section 65(1) says that the amount of ‘severance pay’ is calculated by “multiplying the employee’s regular wages for a regular work week” by the number of years served, or parts thereof, to a maximum of 26 weeks (s. 65(5)).
2.  Now ask what “regular wages” means.  Section 1 gives us a definition:

“regular wages” means wages other than overtime pay, public holiday pay, premium pay, vacation pay, termination pay and severance pay and entitlements under a provision of an employee’s contract of employment that under subsection 5 (2) prevail over Part VIII, Part X, Part XI or Part XV;

3.   On we go.  What are ‘wages’?  We also have a definition for that in Section 1.

“wages” means,

(a) monetary remuneration payable by an employer to an employee under the terms of an employment contract, oral or written, express or implied,

(b) any payment required to be made by an employer to an employee under this Act, and

(c) any allowances for room or board under an employment contract or prescribed allowances,

but does not include,

(d) tips and other gratuities,

4.   The exclusion of tips from the definition of wages in section seems to seal the deal, doesn’t it? In fact, the way the definition of wages is written, even if the employment contract expressly said that tips form part of an employees wages, for the purposes of the ESA, they would not, since the parties cannot contract out of the ESA’s very clear direction that tips are not to be included in the calculation of wages under the ESA, even if they are treated as wages under the contract.  Is that how you read this?  That is peculiar public policy, isn’t it?

If my quick reading of this is correct, and tips are not to be included for the purposes of counting wages under the ESA, then the next question is why?
What public policy is advanced by basing all entitlements to wages under the ESA on base wage, when everyone knows that tips form the majority of hospitality employees wages?

The one benefit the current rules have in their favour is simplicity.  It is easy to calculate a person’s wage rate, but may be more tricky to assess how much  a person’s weekly tips are.  Is that a justification for the model in your view?  In the Four Seasons’ case, according to the article, the tips were often included directly in bills and were distributed as a matter of course to the employees, and were included directly on their pay stubs.  So there isn’t much issue about calculating the tips.  They appear to have been just a regular part of their earnings.
Consider the following. The ESA itself recognizes that some employees’ earnings are principally based on tips.  This appears in the definition of ‘minimum wage”. Look at Section 5(1) of Regulation 285/01.  It says that the minimum wage for most employees is $10.25 per hour, but  “For an employee who, as a regular part of his or her employment, serves liquor directly to customers, guests, members or patrons in premises for which a licence or permit has been issued under the Liquor Licence Act, $8.25 an hour.”   Why do liquor servers get a lower wage?  Answer:  Because the government knows that most of their earnings come from tips, not base wages.
Moreover, tips are considered part of employee income for the purposes of employment insurance legislation, since under Section 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, tips are treated as income’arising out of employment’.  If an employee or employer doesn’t know the exact amount of the tips received, a reasonable amount will be assessed.  (See discussion here).  Tips are also considered taxable income under the Income Tax Act (see discussion here).  So in general Canadian law treats tips as part of employees income for most purposes, except when it comes time to calculate severance pay under the ESA.

Do you find that curious?  The state carves out a special category of low wage worker in minimum wage laws because their income is mostly in the form of tips, requires employees to pay taxes on tips as if they are part of their regular earnings, but then suddenly ignores those earnings altogether when it comes time to calculate the amount of severance pay to which the employee is entitled?
Is that a reasonable and fair system to the hospitality workers?  If so, why?  If not, what alternative model would you suggest that is fairer?

 

4 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
"This is Not Collective Bargaining; this is collective bullying": Senator Cowan. Great Exchange in Canadian Senate on Back to Work Legislation
next post
Reconsideration Heard in Human Rights Decision Ordering Damages Based on $1.25 per Hour Wage Rate

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·
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.