Is this a violation of workplace law? At my workplace, we can get paid for a maximum of 15 hours per week (they refuse to pay us anything beyond that), however, they indirectly expect us to work more than that (by giving us tasks, and deadlines which can not possibly be done in 15 hours) If we work more than 15 hours in a week, we are asked to put the hours in our next pay-period. The problem is we are constantly over 15 hours, and have accumulated many hours over our work term. Also, the job is live in, and the money we make from working at this job is not nearly enough to even cover the rent (which is the real reason we are seeking legal advice to bring up with our management). We are contract workers, and have no union, if that helps. Is this a violation of any kind, and what action should we take? Thanks in advance for your help! [EDIT] My workplace is in Ontario, Canada. We are basically expected to work beyond the 15 hour limit. Hope this helps.
The first question would be whether you are an employee, or an independent contractor. There is more to that determination than how the company labels you, but that is a starting point. Based on the minimal autonomy that you imply that you have, you would probably be found to be an employee. Then there are limits on the number of hours that you can work in a week or day, which they are complying with. The employer is required to record the hours that you worked, and it is a crime to keep false records. It is also required that an employer pay for the time you work. Therefore the employer cannot legally refuse to pay you for your labor, and they cannot legally falsify records. The employer can limit your pay to 15 hours per week, if you work just 15 hours per week. They can also set ridiculous performance standards, whereby at the end of the week you will not have done what they wanted you to do. Their only recourse is to dismiss you. In response, you can file a complaint, but note that the concept of "wrongful dismissal" under the act is about entitlement to termination or severance pay. The arbitrator may find that the employer contravened the act, and can order them to rescind the termination. Or, before you get fired, you can complain and the arbitrator could order the employer to either modify their work requirements or else to pay you for the time worked. The difficult point (for you) in this case is that the act does not address employer performance expectations, and employers are generally allowed to set their own performance standards. If you have a written employment contract, there might be provisions regarding termination which could help you. Without a written contact, there is no statutory provision that prevents an employer for terminating you, but they may have to give you notice and pay for doing so, as long as you are not terminated for "just cause". Hoang v. Mann, 2014 ONSC 3762 is an Ontario case where an employee was terminated for just case based on insubordination, job performance, inability to get along with co-workers and so on. On the front of job performance, the courts have found that an employer must clearly communicate standards to employees, and give employees an opportunity to meet those standards. But they do not generally decide e.g. how many units per hour an assembly-line worker can reasonably be expected to complete.
The page you link is a good summary. It describes the employer obligations under the Ontario Employment Standards Act. Eating periods are described at section 20: 20 (1) An employer shall give an employee an eating period of at least 30 minutes at intervals that will result in the employee working no more than five consecutive hours without an eating period. Exception (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the employer and the employee agree, whether or not in writing, that the employee is to be given two eating periods that together total at least 30 minutes in each consecutive five-hour period. This section has been applied several times by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and appears to have been given its plain meaning. There are two ways that the Act lets an employer provide those breaks: Provide full 30-minute eating period(s) so that the employee works no more than five consecutive hours without an eating period. By agreement, provide two eating periods that total 30 minutes, &quot;in each consecutive five-hour period&quot; If proceeding by option two, the 30 minutes of eating period have to occur &quot;in each consecutive five-hour period.&quot; The Ontario Labour Relations Board has described these two options and has said that option two requires the breaks to be &quot;within&quot; each consecutive five-hour period. See Rusty's at Blue Inc. / M &amp; S Accounting v Erica Solmes, 2022 CanLII 56373 (paragraph 125, emphasis in original): Section 20 requires an employer to give an employee an eating period of 30 minutes after no more than five consecutive hours of work, or (with the agreement of the employee) two eating periods totalling 30 minutes within each consecutive five-hour period. Whether an employee is entitled to a single 30-minute eating period or to two eating periods totalling 30 minutes, the eating periods must be uninterrupted. The other answer and the page you link also describes an &quot;exceptional circumstances&quot; exception, but that is describing section 19 of the Act. Those exceptional circumstances can only let an employer get around the requirements of sections 17 and 18. Those are not relevant to the eating-period requirements. An employer may require an employee to work more than the maximum number of hours permitted under section 17 or to work during a period that is required to be free from performing work under section 18 only as follows
Your boss is totally wrong. Legally, there is no such thing as a "probation period" in the UK. You have the right to your holiday payment, according to the days that you worked. What can happen: The legal minimum is I think 28 days per year including bank holidays, but most companies give 23 or 24 days PLUS eight days bank holiday. Your contract may say that the first three months are called probation period, and during that time you only get the legal minimum, and after that the much more common higher amount. That would be legal. But even so, you would be entitled to seven days, minus any bank holidays where you didn't work.
Law (regardless of its type) supersedes contract, provided it has jurisdiction over the persons bound by that contract. Contract provisions that are counter to law are generally held to be void. State law has authority over an employer's policies or hand book. However, there may be exceptions in state law (so I would double check). A frequent exception (at least in California law, which I am most familiar with) is for very small businesses. Another exception, from C.R.S. § 8-4-101(5), is if you are considered a "contractor" rather than an employee, per the government's determination. It is possibly worth your time to let you employer know of this conflict before termination if possible, so that they can adjust their policies, rather than in an adversarial position after termination, if only to avoid the headache.
The US Department of Labor Employer's Guide to Advance Notice of Closings and Layoffs states Can I pay my workers their salary and benefits for 60 days in lieu of notice? Neither the Act nor the regulations recognize the concept of pay in lieu of notice. WARN requires notice, making no provision for any alternative. Failure to give notice does a significant disservice to workers and undermines other services that are part of the purpose of the WARN Act. However, since WARN provides that the maximum employer liability for damages, including back pay and benefits, is for the period of violation up to 60 days, providing your employees with full pay and benefits for the 60-day period effectively precludes any relief. (emphasis mine) So from the Federal perspective, so-called pay in lieu is technically against the WARN act, but no penalty may occur. Note that payment in lieu is not unique to this situation at all. For regulated high-trust industries, such as banking and aviation, pay in lieu is basically required due to the risk of employee sabotage.
No enforceable contract can contain illegal clauses and work Contracts can not remove some rights and never can bypass obligations. Talking to the police at times is a requirement by law, as is taking to the labor board. Responding to a subpoena is legally forced by the court. An NDA might limit the amount what you can say, and a contract might limit who you can sue, but can not ban you from suing at all. In germany, a contract that tries to curtail such requirements would be Sittenwidrig and make all clauses that try to limit the rights fully Void and nill ab initio - in fact, it can be used as evidence against the drafting party that they tried to do so. So to stay legal and keep the clause working in the limited fashion where it is not demanded, the clause cuts the contract to explicitly exclude such situations.
Do I give my letter 60 days from the end of the contract, or 60 days before September? My boss told me that it would be 60 days before the end of the contract, but I wanted a second opinion. Your boss is wrong. The contract requires a party to give a 60-day notice only if the party intends to override the default condition that "the contract shall run for the full term named above". Since your contract ends on June 30th and you plan on working there up to and including that date, you are abiding by the [contract] default condition. Therefore, you are not required to send a notice for something you are not intending to do (namely, to terminate the contract ahead of schedule). The information you provide here does not reflect any language in your current contract relating to subsequent contracts/renewals. The existence of such language might or might not change the assessment. That issue aside, you might want to ensure that the preliminary offer made to you verbally be somehow reflected in writing. It will not be more binding than the verbal offer, but that evidence could prove useful in the event that the new employer unexpectedly changes its mind at a time when your current employer has discarded you for contract renewal. Your prospective employer should become aware of how its request for a reference from your boss jeopardizes a renewal with your current employer.
There is a reason these are commonly called &quot;TRAP&quot;s (Training Repayment Agreement Provision). These agreements don't just protect the employer from paying for training that an employee can use elsewhere. These agreements frequently act to &quot;trap&quot; the employee in difficult employment circumstances where the employer can demand long hours and excessive dedication in difficult jobs for little pay, knowing that if the employee tries to leave, they could face a substantial financial burden. These agreements are generally legal, provided they are executed in good faith. However, certain circumstances have been used to void the agreements. In particular: If the cost or value of the the training is vastly overstated, so the training actually provides minimal value to the employee, but has a disproportionately large repayment cost that only benefit the employer. If the term of the agreement is excessively long (typically, more than 1 year). Training is unlikely to be so valuable and specialized that the employee would need years to repay the benefits. (Certain exceptions apply, such as for advanced engineering work or specialized skills like airline pilots) If the &quot;training&quot; doesn't actually have much value; if the training is just company propaganda and policies, rather than job specific skills, repayment costs are unlikely to hold up in a dispute. If the employee already has demonstrated skills before the training, then forcing them into unnecessary training just for a TRAP contract is unlikely to be supported. For example, someone with years of skilled electrical design work probably cannot be forced to repay thousands of dollars of &quot;training&quot; for a few weeks of basic electrical refresher courses. Basically, if the training isn't valuable to the employee and the cost isn't reasonable for the training, the TRAP line can frequently be voided. Yet doing so almost always requires mediation or a suit, which are also expensive, time consuming, and have uncertain outcomes. Its best for a prospective employee to call out a TRAP provision as a red flag before accepting an offer, and avoid it if at all possible unless they truly believe they'll benefit from the training, intend to stay the full term, and understand the employer might use the cost as a way to expect more from them or hold back their professional advancement.