Canadian Employment Law Today

October 10, 2018

Focuses on human resources law from a business perspective, featuring news and cases from the courts, in-depth articles on legal trends and insights from top employment lawyers across Canada.

Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/1038197

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 7 of 7

©2018 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. The analysis contained herein represents the opinion of the authors and should in no way be construed as being either official or unofficial policy of any governmental body. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada, through the Publications Assistance Program (PAP), toward our mailing costs. GST #897176350 Published biweekly 22 times a year Subscription rate: $308 per year CUSTOMER SERVICE Tel: (416) 609-3800 (Toronto) (800) 387-5164 (outside Toronto) Fax: (416) 298-5082 (Toronto) (877) 750-9041 (outside Toronto) E-mail: customersupport. legaltaxcanada@tr.com Website: www.employmentlawtoday.com Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1T 3V4 Director, Media Solutions, Canada: Karen Lorimer Publisher/Editor in Chief: Todd Humber Editor: Jeffrey R. Smith E-mail: Jeffrey.R.Smith@thomsonreuters.com Sales Manager: Paul Burton Email: paul.burton@thomsonreuters.com Phone: (416) 649-9928 Emplo y ment Law Today Canad ad a ian www.employmentlawtoday.com How would you handle this case? Read the facts and see if the judge agrees YOU MAKE THE CALL 8 YOU MAKE THE CALL Was Cross entitled to his entire fi nal paycheque? OR Had Cross agreed to the deductions for the expenses related to his arrest when he acknowledged the policy in the driver's manual? Had Cross agreed to the deductions for the expenses related to his arrest when he acknowledged the policy in the driver's manual? IF YOU SAID Cross was entitled to his entire fi nal paycheque, you're right. e adjudica- tor noted that the Canada Labour Code only permitted employers to make deductions from wages in four instances: to pay amounts required by legislation, amounts required by a court order or collective agreement, if au- thorized in writing by the employee, or any other amounts prescribed by regulation. Penta argued that Cross' acknowledge- ment of the driver's manual constituted written agreement of the deduction — Cross committed an illegal act that led to Penta incurring expenses to recover the truck and trailer that he had abandoned at the side of the road when he was arrested. e driver's manual also gave Cross notice that those costs would be charged back to him, said the company. However, the adjudicator found that the provision in the driver's manual was "very general and broad" and it wasn't possible to determine the amount or type of deduction Cross agreed to if he breached the alcohol provision. Had Penta wanted to recover the costs of a truck and trailer recovery from any illegal actions related to alcohol, it should have specifi ed as such in the manual, the adjudicator said. " e wording of the employer's driver's manual is not clear and unequivocal in regards to any future deductions for costs related to breach of the alcohol prohibition provisions," said the adjudicator, fi nding that Penta didn't have written authorization to make deductions. e adjudicator suggested that Penta might have a case to pursue recovery of its costs in another legal forum, but it couldn't do so under the Canada Labour Code. e adjudicator upheld an earlier order from a federal labour program inspector for Penta to pay Cross his entire fi nal paycheque. See Penta Transport Ltd. and Cross, Re, 2018 CarswellNat 5037 (Can. Lab. Code Adj.). Impaired driving arrest costly for employer THIS EDITION of You Make the Call fea- tures a trucking company that deducted the cost of recovering a truck and trailer from the side of the road after the driver was arrested for impaired driving from the driver's last paycheque. e company, Penta Transport, is based in Nanaimo, B.C., and specializes in trans- porting construction and building materi- als throughout the western provinces, Alas- ka, and the northwestern United States. Penta hired Jay Cross as a truck driver on March 22, 2017, a position that included a probationary period to determine the suit- ability of the employment relationship. When Cross was hired, the company in- structed him on the Penta driver's manual, which included a section stipulating that any employee who was under the infl uence of or consumed drugs or alcohol while on duty, or brought drugs or alcohol to company prem- ises or on its trucks, would be subject to im- mediate termination. e manual also stated that "any costs associated due to these illegal actions will be charged back to the driver." Cross signed an acknowledgement that he had received and read the manual. Cross was given his fi rst assignment on March 30 and began picking up and de- livering loads in a truck and trailer to lo- cations in Manitoba, Alberta, and B.C. In early April, he was assigned to pick up a load in Manitoba. In the middle of the night of April 10, one of the two co-owners of Penta, Gordon Putz, received a phone call from the RCMP in Maidstone, Sask., informing him that Cross had been arrested there for an alcohol-relat- ed off ence. It turned out that Cross had been drinking that evening and, though he hadn't been driving, he was in care and control of the Penta truck and trailer he had been driv- ing from Manitoba. Cross' blood-alcohol content was above the legal limit and, as a re- sult, he was charged with impaired driving. e RCMP told Putz that after Cross had been arrested, the truck and trailer had been left on the side of the highway, so the company needed to get it moved. e com- pany's other co-owner arranged for a tow- ing company to take the truck and trailer to its yard in Lloydminster, Sask., which was near the Alberta/Saskatchewan border. Another Penta driver travelled to Lloyd- minster to pick up the truck and deliver its load to its fi nal destination. e company incurred several expenses sending the replacement driver and it had to keep one of its trucks parked while the other driver took care of Cross' load. e expenses included the travel expenses of the replacement driver from Vancouver, the towing fee, and the replacement driver's wages — totalling $1,539.86. Cross didn't contact Penta after his ar- rest. e company terminated is employ- ment — one month after his hiring and within his probationary period — and de- ducted the expenses for the recovery of the truck from his fi nal paycheque, as per its driver manual for "illegal actions" related to alcohol. Cross made no attempt to con- tact the company for two months until he called asking about the deductions. When informed of the reason for the de- ductions, Cross fi led a complaint under the Canada Labour Code seeking recovery of withheld wages.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Employment Law Today - October 10, 2018