[Confidential] Work trouble

[Raid3n]

i think ICBC should have a secret shopper kind of deal too lol. to root out the bad examiners, the ones that dont even test anyone, just pass them. if you can't pass a simple road test i sure as hell dont want to share the road with you.

back on topic: re: mystery shopper being a scam, it's no different that random quality checks in a factory. they are there to make sure the regulations are being followed.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by geeknerd

Yep you're entitled to your pay.

Though IMO you shouldn't be.
Your job is to id people but you didnt = you werent doing your job = shouldnt be payed; especially, if your direct action cost the store $7500 fine. Cuz although you were hired by a shady manager, you knew the correct policy of checking ids, regardless of if you have a SIR certificate.

But this is Canada and you are entitled to your pay. Any 'loss/fines/etc' incurred during work is responsiblity upon the employer and not the employee, even if it was your direct actions

It's bullshit thinking like that which got a man killed over $12 worth of gas a few years back and now we all have to pre-pay for gas.

[static]

Originally Posted by AzNightmare

In Portland, my buddy was buying a can of beer at a gas station.
I was lining up behind him with just a can of ice tea. And we both got ID'ed.
His reasoning was because we were together. lol

that's the law there. You wouldn't want a 21 year old buying alcohol with a 15 year old in tow.

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Raid3n

back on topic: re: mystery shopper being a scam, it's no different that random quality checks in a factory. they are there to make sure the regulations are being followed.

I don't have problems with mystery shoppers. However, they should give warnings for the first offence. Getting a $7,500 fine for your first infraction is a bit severe, IMO.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by dangonay

I don't have problems with mystery shoppers. However, they should give warnings for the first offence. Getting a $7,500 fine for your first infraction is a bit severe, IMO.

Yup. Willing to bet the manager is so pissed because this isn't his first infraction.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by dangonay

I don't have problems with mystery shoppers. However, they should give warnings for the first offence. Getting a $7,500 fine for your first infraction is a bit severe, IMO.

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Yup. Willing to bet the manager is so pissed because this isn't his first infraction.

I've done enough installs (cameras/security) in liquor stores, I've seen lots of notices posted in offices or employee areas noting that they'd received a warning for not taking IDs and that they'll get slapped down if it happens again... so yeah, they DO give a warning first. I don't think the first fine is $7500 either - I'd suspect this guy has been nailed a few times now.

Seen plenty of similar notices in gas stations about not taking IDs for selling cigarettes, too...

[Ferra]

am I the only one who thinks op is a lazy useless scum?

let's admit it, the incident had nothing to do with "lack of training" whatsoever, anyone who has been to a liquor store knows you have to id shoppers...you didn't do it because you were lazy, un-diligent and apathetic
you probably thought..."meh, whatever, this is a stupid job and what's the worst that can happen to me if I didn't ID him"

worst...your action caused your employer 7.5k loss and you showed no sign of remorse...
keep this attitude up, and you will be flipping burgers for the rest of your life...


now to answer your questions.... like everyone else said, your employer can't withhold your paycheck, file a claim to the bc labor ministry and you will probably get your check within a few weeks.
There is pretty much no chance your employer can sue you successfully...but that doesn't mean he won't sue you just to screw you around and make you pay a lot of legal costs if he is pissed off enough...there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits every day

[EXV603]

^Didn't read. Was too busy looking at your avatar.

[dbaz]

ferra i believe the losing party has to pay the costs of the winners legal fees, so it would be an even greater loss to the employer

[f.]

I took Commercial Law this past semester, and it's really funny how this all relates. Anyways, correct me if I'm wrong, but when you're at work, no matter what your negligence, your employer is liable as long as your at work. I wouldn't worry, make sure you demand your money and make sure if he wants to sue you, you fully support, he wont win.

[hsh4]

Originally Posted by f.

I took Commercial Law this past semester, and it's really funny how this all relates. Anyways, correct me if I'm wrong, but when you're at work, no matter what your negligence, your employer is liable as long as your at work. I wouldn't worry, make sure you demand your money and make sure if he wants to sue you, you fully support, he wont win.

I took commercial law last semester also and I'm thinking the exact same thing. From what I learned, your employer is responsible for anything you do that is work related such as negligence for not checking for id. However, your employer is not responsible if you do something outside your working requirements.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Ferra

am I the only one who thinks op is a lazy useless scum?

let's admit it, the incident had nothing to do with "lack of training" whatsoever, anyone who has been to a liquor store knows you have to id shoppers...you didn't do it because you were lazy, un-diligent and apathetic
you probably thought..."meh, whatever, this is a stupid job and what's the worst that can happen to me if I didn't ID him"

worst...your action caused your employer 7.5k loss and you showed no sign of remorse...
keep this attitude up, and you will be flipping burgers for the rest of your life...


now to answer your questions.... like everyone else said, your employer can't withhold your paycheck, file a claim to the bc labor ministry and you will probably get your check within a few weeks.
There is pretty much no chance your employer can sue you successfully...but that doesn't mean he won't sue you just to screw you around and make you pay a lot of legal costs if he is pissed off enough...there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits every day

1. The OP doesn't hide nor did he try to play down his error.

2. Occupational errors (some with huge consequence/some not) are a common place in the work field. It's just the human factor that's involved with any task. It's why there's safety measures in any construction sites are present, mandatory professional insurance for lawyers and medical practitioners, etc; but make no mistake, not even those guarantee an error-free environment and therefor are they grounds to abuse employees or to keep the money their employee's are entitled to.

3. The OP will incur no legal costs because:

a) to bring forth civil action, all the fees required to initiate proceedings are incurred by the plaintiff; not the defendant.

b) under the circumstances, there's no way in hell the plaintiff will win; is entitled to $7500 from the defendant, nor is he legally correct in withholding his paycheque. In fact, if the OP counterclaimed for his paycheque, I'm 99.99% sure the plaintiff will be the one ending up paying rather than collecting.

c) just as explained how cut-and-dry the above is, there's no need for a defense attorney which I assume is what you're implying will exacerbate the defendant's legal costs.



Nice try playing devil's advocate but you're wayyyyyy off base on all accounts. If the OP gets sued, he'll be the one walking away with $$

[Ferra]

Originally Posted by Noir

1. The OP doesn't hide nor did he try to play down his error.

2. Occupational errors (some with huge consequence/some not) are a common place in the work field. It's just the human factor that's involved with any task. It's why there's safety measures in any construction sites are present, mandatory professional insurance for lawyers and medical practitioners, etc; but make no mistake, not even those guarantee an error-free environment and therefor are they grounds to abuse employees or to keep the money their employee's are entitled to.

3. The OP will incur no legal costs because:

a) to bring forth civil action, all the fees required to initiate proceedings are incurred by the plaintiff; not the defendant.

b) under the circumstances, there's no way in hell the plaintiff will win; is entitled to $7500 from the defendant, nor is he legally correct in withholding his paycheque. In fact, if the OP counterclaimed for his paycheque, I'm 99.99% sure the plaintiff will be the one ending up paying rather than collecting.

c) just as explained how cut-and-dry the above is, there's no need for a defense attorney which I assume is what you're implying will exacerbate the defendant's legal costs.



Nice try playing devil's advocate but you're wayyyyyy off base on all accounts. If the OP gets sued, he'll be the one walking away with $$

he could be found liable if there is evidence that he did it willfully to damage his employer ... (which is hard that's why I said there is pretty much no chance he could be sued successfully.)

Considering the amount of money involve, these cases are most likely going to small claim court...and from my personal experience, 90% of the time you won't get even half of your lawyer fees back (you usually get 100% of your disbursement like filing claims, proceedings & service, but these are pocket change compare to the lawyers' fees...edit: btw...those lawyers always tell you you will win and you can get your legal fees back in the beginning )
Our company had won obvious cases in small claim, paid $3500+ in lawyer's fees and got $1500-$1000 back, lose case where the other side paid $3000+ in legal fees and the judge only gave him only $500. It is all based on the judge's discretion

and things aren't always so cut and dry when it goes to court...there are plenty of stoned headed judges who ignore one side of the story and make ridiculous judgement.
as for defending himself, not everyone are capable of explaining the case clearly infront of a judge. You may have a cut and dry case, but a lot of ppl just can't explain the story in front of a judge because they get nervous or they just aren't good at speaking.

if the OP counterclaimed for his paycheque, I'm 99.99% sure the plaintiff will be the one ending up paying rather than collecting.

like i said, op is entitled to his paycheck, and he would be able to get his paycheck much quicker if he goes to the ministry of labor first instead of going thru court.

[Noir]

What are you talking about? it's small claims court. There won't even be any lawyers; or a legal team present (necessary) to exacerbate anyone's cost.

And yes it is cut and dry. I know TV has us thinking that statutes and laws are vague and open to interpretation with countless lupolls and whatnot, but within the context of this subject, it's really straightforward.

* an employee is not personally liable for his commercial actions performed under employement.

* he is entitled to pay for services rendered; regardless if the cause of termination was the employee's fault.



Should the employer sue, the OP will actually find himself in a position where he'll be the one collecting money (via countersuit); not the other way around.

[Nlkko]

People are thinking way over their heads. Nobody is gonna sue anybody. The dbag manager just doing the oldest trick in the book hoping to swallow the paycheck. All empty threats.

Talk to the labor board, they'd be more than happy to show the manager what's up.

Somebody fuck up, you fire them. All good. Do a better job at screening applicants next time. No need for the verbal abuse, pushing/shoving and threaten to sue, this isn't high school.

[mr_chin]

Originally Posted by Nlkko

People are thinking way over their heads. Nobody is gonna sue anybody. The dbag manager just doing the oldest trick in the book hoping to swallow the paycheck. All empty threats.

Talk to the labor board, they'd be more than happy to show the manager what's up.

Somebody fuck up, you fire them. All good. Do a better job at screening applicants next time. No need for the verbal abuse, pushing/shoving and threaten to sue, this isn't high school.

Any threat against an employee already violates BC labour law.

[Ferra]

Originally Posted by Noir

What are you talking about? it's small claims court. There won't even be any lawyers; or a legal team present (necessary) to exacerbate anyone's cost.

you obviously don't have much real experience with small claim court...

just because you heard small claim is meant for people to present their case by themselves without legal representation doesn't mean people can't/won't hire legal counsel (lawyer, paralegal, students) to present their case....small claim court or not, lawyer up will always give you a big advantage over the other unrepresented party

and like i've said in the very first post, there is really no chance the employer can sue him successfully if all the facts are presented.
unless op so lazy he doesn't even bother going to draft and file a defense in court

[JesseBlue]

whatever the outcome, the employer can put down that the op was fired which would stilly be pretty bad for future employment...

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by JesseBlue

whatever the outcome, the employer can put down that the op was fired which would stilly be pretty bad for future employment...

If the guy just started (which he probably did), then he didn't work there long enough for it to really matter.

You don't need to put every single place you've ever worked on a resume.

[falcon]

OP, ignore all the silly comments here.

All you need to do is contact the BC Labour Relations Board and file a complaint. They will require you to do a "Self Help" kit, which is basically a paper you send your employer stating your issues and how it can be resolved. Then you have to wait 15 days (IIRC) and if you do not hear back you can file a complaint with the Labour Relations Board and they will get your money. It takes a while, I did it and it took 3 months to get my vacation pay, last paycheque and a bunch of commissions I was owed. But at the end of the day my boss was not going to get the last laugh... he ended up getting fined too which was great.

From this point out, I would not contact him directly any longer. Only contact him through the Self Help kit or through Labour Relations.