Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2016 Cases and Trends 6 | March 2, 2016 change the beddings and change the towels in each room, which was expected to take about 20 minutes. When she started working at the Clo- verleaf, Teneva signed a motel registration card that indicated she needed a room in exchange for work. McKeown also provided her a handwritten letter at her request for Ontario Works, which stated she worked "a few hours a week" and paid $250 per week for a room. McKeown indicated Teneva could set her own schedule and leave the motel to go to job interviews, but he could call her room at any time between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. to have her clean rooms on demand or deliver tow- els and toiletries to rooms. When he called, it was expected she would answer and re- spond promptly. In the first two months of 2014, business at the Cloverleaf was slow, so McKeown assigned Teneva other duties such as laun- dry, garbage removal and shovelling snow, for which she was paid per task. Teneva was also paid $30 to paint a room, which took her twice as long as usual because she stopped to pick up groceries. After three weeks of working at the Clo- verleaf, Teneva asked McKeown to provide another letter to Ontario Works showing her hours of work and wages as she wasn't mak- ing enough money for food or medication. Instead, McKeown asked her to transfer to another motel owned by the Cloverleaf 's owner, the Idlewood Inn in Scarborough, Ont. At the time of the transfer, Tenenva owed the Cloverleaf $60 for her room. is was transferred to the Idlewood, where she also stayed in a room. Teneva asked the owner to for a letter with her rate of pay and hours of work, but the owner refused because it would put her in a "legal status." Without the letter, Teneva's social assistance cheques stopped coming. When she arrived at the Idlewood, Te- neva also signed a document that stated she worked as an independent contractor, pro- vided her own gloves and the motel wouldn't make any deductions from her pay. She was paid $4 to clean a single room and $5 to clean a double room, and agreed that any time spent in the rooms beyond 30 minutes each would be considered personal time. As at the Cloverleaf, Teneva was expected to be ready to clean a room immediately after a guest checked out, anytime between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. She was also expected to deliver towels and toiletries to rooms upon request, a job for which she wasn't paid. Teneva often didn't clean rooms as fast as the managers liked, and was often told to hurry up. Sometimes, one of the managers asked her to clean a room again as it wasn't to her satisfaction — the manager was a self- described "clean freak." Teneva was asked to paint hotel rooms as well, but since the rooms were larger than at the Cloverleaf, she was paid $50 per room. Teneva also worked long hours at the Idlewood, which didn't allow her to go to job interviews. On April 27, 2014, her feet started bleeding while she was cleaning a room, so she went back to her room to take care of them. e manager on duty went to her room, unlocked the door with his mas- ter key, and told her to finish cleaning the guest rooms. Teneva told the manager that she "had it" and quit. Later that day, the hotel's owner asked Te- neva to return to work, but Teneva said she was treated rudely by management and felt she was discriminated against because she was given all the double rooms to clean. She also complained the hours she worked were too long to attend job interviews. However, Teneva returned to work and was able to take time off for a few interviews. In mid-May, Teneva told the manager on duty that she wanted to be paid minimum wage. e owner contacted her on May 19 and told her it wasn't possible to pay her minimum wage, her employment was ter- minated, and she had one-and-one-half hours to move out of the hotel. An employment standards officer denied Teneva's claim for minimum wage, finding she was an independent contractor and not covered by the Ontario Employment Stan- dards Act, 2000. Teneva appealed to the province's Labour Relations Board. e board found that Teneva was "not engaged in business on her own account" and both the Cloverleaf and the Idlewood "exercised substantial control over Ms. Te- neva's schedule." ough management said she could make her own schedule, the real- ity was she was expected to answer manage- ment's call to work at any time of the day. In addition, Teneva didn't have any cleaning work other than that she performed at the motels. She was also unable to take time to go to job interviews until she threatened to quit in April 2014, said the board. e board also found Teneva had limited ability to profit from cleaning rooms, as management decided what type of rooms she was to clean. It also provided her with all the cleaning products and equipment she needed to clean and paint the rooms. Based on all these factors, the board found Teneva was an employee of the Cloverleaf Motel and Idlewood Inn. Since Teneva was an employee, the Clo- verleaf and Idlewood were required to pay her minimum wage for the hours she worked. e board estimated she cleaned an average of eight rooms a day, which took her about five hours, based on the evidence. e other tasks she was assigned added an- other hour, so she worked six hours a day, seven days a week – or 42 hours per week, said the board. e board also found Teneva was ter- minated for asking she be paid minimum wage, which was her right under the act. is amounted to a reprisal that left her without employment or shelter, since she was also kicked out of her room. e owner of the two motels was ordered to pay Teneva wages for the three months it took her to find another job — $5372.64 — and an additional $5,000 for pain and suffer- ing caused by the harsh manner of her dis- missal. See Teneva v. 946900 Ontario Ltd., 2016 CarswellOnt 1003 (Ont. Lab. Rel. Bd.). Cleaner was on call from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. every day « from MOTEL on page 1 The motels exercised control over the worker's schedule and she was expected to answer the call to work at any time of the day. WEBINARS Interested in learning more about employment law issues directly from the experts? Check out the Carswell Professional Development Centre's live and on-demand webinars discussing topics such as employee off-duty conduct, preventing workplace bullying and violence, social media in the workplace, and biometrics. To view the webinar catalogue, visit cpdcentre.ca/hrreporter.

• Cover