Employer Paying Less Than Agreed I'm an undergraduate in the U.S., and a few weeks after starting my tutoring job this year at my university, my employer changed the manner in which I am being paid. I signed a form that states "ALL TUTORS ARE PAID 8 HOURS, unless told otherwise." However, a few weeks later, I received an email stating I would be paid for the exact number of hours worked. I had this same job for the past two years, and I was paid for 8 hours while only working 5 hours each week, and the department was fully aware of this. They hired me again without indicating things had changed until after I signed the form. I spoke with the person who sent the email, and she said that she was sorry I misinterpreted the statement "ALL TUTORS ARE PAID 8 HOURS, unless told otherwise," and that it actually means that it is expected that people with my position will work at most 8 hours. I expected she would say that I am now being "told otherwise," so the contract had not been violated, but that was not the case. It seems like my university may have done something wrong, but I'm not sure. In particular: The sheet I signed seems pretty informal, and it was clearly made by someone in the department just for this position. It's not some government form with a name. Does that mean it isn't legally binding? If it is legally binding, does the phrase "unless told otherwise" mean that it has not been violated? It seems like the moral thing to do would probably be to tell me before starting to work, but maybe its still legal to do it afterwards. The department totally thinks that the sheet is being violated, but it's possible they're in the clear without realizing it. Even if it is a binding contract and it has been violated, does that mean anything? Am I supposed to just quit and look for a job elsewhere, or is there something else I ought to do? Thanks for the help.
It is not necessary for an agreement to be verbose and written by a lawyer, for it to be binding. There is some danger in having untrained people writing up agreements (they don't know the distinction between "what the law says" versus "what we had in mind"). The agreement is binding, but their interpretation of the contract language does not automatically prevail. The statement "ALL TUTORS ARE PAID 8 HOURS, unless told otherwise" is slightly problematic since it is not true (you can't pay time, you pay money for time spend). With no other statements about time and payment, and just looking at the words, this says that an employee will be paid for 8 hours work, period. Unless they say something different. That could mean "even if you work 20 hours, you only get paid for 8" (illegal under various labor laws), or it could be "even if you only work 2 hours, you get paid for 8" (the most reasonable interpretation). The interpretation "You are limited to 8 hours of work per pay period / contract" is not a reasonable interpretation: that isn't what the clause says. Such a limit could be clearly expressed ("can work up to 8 hours" is a clear way to state the limit), and since they didn't say anything like that, that is not how the courts will read the clause. They can, however, inform you otherwise, e.g. say "your minimum automatic pay is now 2 hours", or "we will only guarantee 2 hours work", and at that point that's what the number is. Since this is (presumably) a take-it or leave it contract which they wrote up and you didn't actually negotiate, any unclarities are legally interpreted in your favor. If you have worked more than 8 hours and they are using the contract language to argue that you won't be paid for the overage, that is not at all likely to hold up in court. Under terms of the contract (interpreted as stating a minimum guarantee of hours), they can inform you that your new minimum is 0 hours. Also, unless there is some kind of tenure clause, they can terminate the contract at will, and maybe they'll hire you under a different contract. What the terms of employment were for you in the past does not matter, what matters is what the current terms are. If you did not pay attention to the fact that they changed the terms of the agreement as of this quarter, that is not their problem. If they decided to change to "actual hours worked" after the current contract was formed, and they informed you of that fact later, then thereafter that is what the agreement is. Until you are notified of that change, the guaranteed minimum is what it says in the contract. In case their argument is "The university sets this policy, the department made a mistake in not informing you", the university has to take responsibility for the errors of their inferiors.
Overtime pay in Ontario is required by the Employment Standards Act (ESA). Most employees are entitled to &quot;time and a half&quot; if they work more than 44 hours in a single week. According to this Ontario Government web page For most employees, whether they work full-time, part-time, are students, temporary help agency assignment employees, or casual workers, overtime begins after they have worked 44 hours in a work week. Their hours after 44 must be paid at the overtime pay rate. Managers and supervisors do not qualify for overtime if the work they do is managerial or supervisory. Even if they perform other kinds of tasks that are not managerial or supervisory, they are not entitled to get overtime pay if these tasks are performed only on an irregular or exceptional basis. ... A fixed salary compensates an employee for all non-overtime hours up to and including 44 hours a week. After 44 hours, the employee is entitled to overtime pay. ... An employer and an employee cannot agree that the employee will give up their right to overtime pay under the ESA. Agreements such as these are not allowed and would be deemed void. However, an employee can make an agreement to take paid time off in lieu of overtime pay or to average hours of work for overtime pay purposes. An employer cannot lower an employee’s regular wage to avoid paying time and a half after 44 hours (or another overtime threshold that applies) in a work week. For example, if Josée’s regular pay is $17.00 an hour, her employer cannot drop her regular rate in a week when overtime was worked to $15.00 an hour and then pay her $22.50 (1½ × $15.00) for overtime hours worked instead of $25.50 (1 ½ × $17.00). There are various industries that are subject to special rules that modify the usual rules for overtime. There are particular kinds of jobs that are exempt from the ESA. These are listed on this page. Conclusion The situation described in the question sounds like a violation of the ESA. But it might come under an Averaging Agreement, which is permitted. Under such an agreement weeks with longer hours are averaged with weeks that have shorter hours. There are rules governing such agreements. Note that the hours listed in the question amount to 35 hours per week. An additional nine hours could be worked in any given week before getting to the 44 hours of work which usually triggers overtime pay. The linked pages include official contact information for ESA information and enforcement.
The CEO, with his lawyer have tried to convince me that this only apply to current client and any past clients that I have work on. Is this true? No. It will be true only if they make that clarification in the clause or a properly added amendment. The clause currently has no indication that it is limited to "current client and any past clients that [you] have work[ed] on". The CEO's &amp; lawyer's refusal to amend the clause so as to make it consistent with their attempts [to persuade you] would be a red flag. Their inconsistent representations to you suggest that they are not planning to honor the covenant of good faith on which all contracts are premised. Should I expect the CEO to offer a fair contract or is this something you read and negotiate? You should require a contract that seems fair to you. And by "to you" I mean that it has to be in line with your expectations regardless of the average conditions in the labor market. Negotiations are not binding. They are merely a preamble to a contract, and that contract is binding. This is why you should reject a contract that falls short of your requirements. Some clauses are unlawful and/or void and unenforceable as unconscionable or for contravening legislation (unlawful clauses can and do arise even if drafted by attorneys). Thus, although you might not have to worry about those clauses in particular, the company's mere attempt to include them in a contract should alert you of the high risk of ending up with other abusive terms &amp; conditions which are binding and enforceable nonetheless.
Employees are only required to work in the sense that refusal to report can result in discipline (like reprimand or firing) and forfeit of whatever money you would have earned had you shown up. This is exactly the same way federal employees (or most employees, for that matter) are always required to work. The fact that they're not being paid on time has nothing to do with whether it's slavery. That's because pay has nothing to do with slavery. Slavery is forced labor and/or ownership of people, and civilian federal employees are just as free to quit as they normally are. Military personnel can't freely quit, but they can never freely quit. Nothing relevant has changed for either group. Not paying employees is potentially a violation of labor law, and the government in fact lost a lawsuit after the last shutdown for violating the FLSA. If that happens this time too, they'll have to pay damages.
If you want to protect yourself or any property interests you may have in this circumstance you have to talk to a lawyer. You cannot get (or trust) legal advice from the internet. I will, however, make the following personal observations: I only provide a W-9 to people who are paying me money, and who request it as a condition of paying me. I don't know of a legal requirement to supply it after the fact. However, not providing it to someone who did pay you more than $600 in a tax year could certainly make it difficult for them to comply with their tax filing obligations. I do not sign any agreements, assignments, or contracts, without what I consider to be fair consideration. E.g., if on leaving a job (as has happened) I am asked by a former employer to sign something that I am not already obligated to sign due to some prior contract, then I negotiate what is commonly called a "severance package." They pay me and/or extend benefits, and I sign something that limits their liability.
Your title doesn't quite match your question. "Reneging" would mean saying that a lease would be offered at the reduced rent, and then not offering the lease. Here, they offered the lease, and you accepted. So now the question is not whether they can refuse to offer you the reduced-fee lease, but whether they are owed the back rent. Verbal agreements are indeed binding, but they are rather sticky from an evidential point of view. Also, there are other possible complications. If your original lease stated that verbal agreements are not binding, or that only specific people are authorized to modify the terms and the person you talked to is not such a person, then this is not binding. If after they said you could keep the rent reduction, you signed a lease for the full amount or otherwise indicated acceptance of the full amount, then it may be considered not binding. Even if the agreement is not binding, you have further arguments. If you believed that it was binding, and did so out of good faith, then there was not a meeting of the minds, and they can't go after you for breach of contract. They may have other claims, such as damages if they can show that they could have gotten more money from another prospective client, but them accepting the rent makes that difficult to pursue. Now, again, verbal agreements do have evidentiary problems. If your case were nothing than your word claiming that they agreed, you would not have much of a case. But here, you have: -They were willing to take the lower rent for the initial period -You stated that you would leave unless given a continued discount, and you stayed -They didn't make any attempt to collect the full rent for three months -They are willing to give you the discount if you pay the back rent All of this points rather strongly towards your claim being true. You also say "this situation is not unique to me." It's not clear what they means, but if other tenants also got verbal assurances that the discount would continue, and they testify to that effect, then your case is even stronger.
are contract terms enforceable that say the employee has to pay the employer if they leave without giving notice? Yes, as long as the penalization is not of punitive nature. The doctrine of at-will employment is only the default condition, but a contract may supersede it. As for the extra question, reciprocity of sanctions (as in leaving without notice) is not a requirement for enforceability of a contract. In general, the lack of reciprocity only signals that there is a difference in the parties' bargaining power, but usually that does not affect enforceability.
A typo in a contract does not ever void the contract. If the typo changes the meaning of the contract from what was actually intended, then it is up to a judge to interpret the contract and whether it is reasonable that a person would assume its intended meaning. In your example, it is obvious that the word "least" was meant to be there and not "lease" - as the alternate word makes no sense in context - so a judge would not void the contract or release you from your 30 day obligation (which is probably even granted to the landlord by local laws regardless of whether it was stated in the contract). Even misspellings of people's names or addresses on a lease do not void a contract if you have already paid or taken up residence. If any of these situations were brought to court, the judge would just amend the contract to a corrected version that would then serve as the contract between the two parties, replacing the version with the typo. This is known as contract reformation.