[El Bastardo]

The following is a thread submitted by an anonymous Revscene member. Although these kinds of threads usually take place in the Relationships or Health forum, the traffic in Off-Topic make this an appropriate place to post this


So some info, I'm particularly new at my work (ex work now) only 3 months. One day a mystery shopper came by that worked for the BC liquor board, which i was then unaware of, and i accidentally sold him beer. God knows why I did it but i felt really sorry and i didn't even remember ( i USUALLY ID) Then the Bc liquor board people came and issued the offence blah blah. The owner when he found out went ballistic. However now i recently called the owner( after final exams) and asked for the paycheck, and he said no cuz he's too busy dealing with the 7500 with his lawyer., the result of the phone call was him threatening to sue me for 7500


HOWEVER. Here is the list of things he did to me the day the owner found out about the underage selling:
-threatened to "kick my *** right there"
-verbally abused me, calling me a bunch of inappropriate phrases (**********)
-pushed me, shoved me (not hard but he clearly touched me)
+++++
-also the company didn't train me properly, at least i don't think, because they didn't make me get my "serving it right certificate" which as far as im concerned is required before you work.
-i called the police to scare them a bit, and i gave a statement, the police didnt really want anything to do with it i think, but he said he would check the TAPES. however the police checked and the owner LIED about the surviellance not working, when i was JUST there seeing it work.
-Lastly, wouldnt give me my paycheck.

**What I did wrong (not saying its not bad of course)
-Failure to ID a mystery shopper.

Sorry for the length of these details, but what im asking, is, do you think he is really going to sue me, or will i have to settle this eventually in court?

[El Bastardo]

Theres no reason an employer can hold a paycheque. Especially not for that.

Also, on the Serving It Right website it explicitly states

Licensee retail stores, commonly known as private liquor stores, may sell all types of liquor. All licensees, managers and sales staff at BC retail liquor stores must have SIR certificates.

Serving It Right - Who must have a SIR certificate? (http://www.servingitright.com/whoneeds.html)


The fact that you DIDN'T have the certification indemnifies you against liability here. You should've had it as its a condition of employment at a privatized liquor store, but thats not your fault. Thats the fault of the manager.


You should be calling the labour board and letting them know. Yeah, you were at fault because you didn't ID the person, but its a mistake that shouldn't prevent you from getting paid for labour you provided to the workplace.


Also, the employer should know he can't sue you for that $7500. Don't let him bully you.





Lastly, get your damn Serving it Right. Its $35, takes an hour (tops) to do and you can do it online. You can even pay with Paypal.
Serving It Right - Course Introduction (http://www.servingitright.com/course_intro.html)

[Tegra_Devil]

you wont be sued.....but i would sue them

[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 :)

[hirevtuner]

speak to the BC labour board and see what recourse you have with the former employer, you are entitled to your final paycheck even how hostile the situation may be

[Chronix]

sue them for emotional damages.

[dangonay]

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 :)
What, are you from some fucking backwater third world country where employees are little more than paid slaves?

Damn straight we have rights here. Good fucking thing too or else assholes like you would be trying to "dock" pay of employees any chance you get.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[b92]

sue his ass. He is holding your check that you spent your hours at work for, you did your job but you made a mistake(who doesn't?). He put his hands on you which no employer should do. That's some workplace danger. Call WCB ask for their advice also; they are very friendly and will help you as much as they can. No way the employer will win this because, he failed to properly train a employee under probation. FUCK HIS ASS UP!

Oh yeah, record conversation in person or while on phone. I have so much evidence of workplace, they are fucked if they ever do anything to me.

[Mr.HappySilp]

He have no right to hold your pay cheque.
You should have ID ppl however everytime I go to the liqor store (not very often) I never ever got ID check.......

[Meowjin]

i was drinking at the airport bar at LAX and a 60 year old grandma got id'd. State law that everyone must be id'd.

[ree666]

you didnt check the kids id, manager didnt check your SIR id, call it even. haha

[Not really racist!]

Call him back and record the convo, tell him you'll take legal action, these people need to be taught a lesson regardless if you get your paycheck..

[TOS'd]

you didnt check the kids id, manager didnt check your SIR id, call it even. haha

Did you even read the first post in it's entirety? This is far from even..

[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

:suspicious:

[iEatClams]

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 attitudes like these which gives unions support.
We could get rid of unions if managers and businesses better train and pay their employees. Not exploit them.

[murd0c]

As everyone said go to the labor board. If you knew you were trained incorrectly you should of said something at the time but that really doesn't matter. Yes you made a mistake by not IDing the kid but still doesnt give the employer the right to hold your paycheck. As per the labor board the employer has 48hrs to give you your ROE(record of employment) and final paycheck.

Just go speak to them on Wed explain what happened and they will take care of the rest for you. Dont stress its Christmas season and by the sounds of it you can find a better place to work anyways!

[SpicyToFu]

Here you go, see section 21

Employment Standards Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96113_01#section21)

Further info, complaint, etc

http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/

[Noir]

I used to be in Commercial Insurance and here's my professional take:

You are not PERSONALLY liable for your commercial actions performed for/and under the employment of your employer. He can't sue you and is clearly bullying you out of a paycheque. Know your rights; right now he's banking on that you'll fold on his actions. You're entitled to your paycheque 100%

Also FYI,

By law, it is the employer's responsibility for their employees to be ADEQUATELY trained and ADEQUATELY equipped for their tasks; not to mention provide a SAFE environment (which includes free from verbal and physical abuse).

[dbaz]

The fact you were not properly trained and licensed is the employers fault. Its the employers duty to make sure their employees are trained and properly licensed when hiring them. If you are untrained and they hire you they are entitled to train you. If they dont it directly his fault. Heck, even if he fired you from this you can claim that you were not trained and told you didnt need a sir license. This will fuck him over more and you could probably get a settlement for that.
The fine is his problem not yours. If he even attempts to sue you he is an idiot. As a push is a physical altercation, you have now been physically assaulted in a work place, intimidated and suffered emotional trauma. If he tries to do anything youd get him in more shit than you ever could.

[Graeme S]

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 :)

There was a guy I used to work with when I was in warehousing. Decentish guy, if douchey (It's a warehouse and there's a douche working--SHOCK!). Whatever, no big deal. One day, he's on a forklift and he accidentally bungs one of the vertical posts holding up the edge of an entire racking unit. He thinks to himself "Shit, better go report this".

He gets off his machine and takes about four steps...when the vertical buckles, bringing down literally TONNES of product.

Properly trained. Experienced. Licensed.

Not. Liable.


Employer's losses due to mistakes or genuine acts not made in bad faith cannot be punished by withholding or deducting pay. If an employee has not been instructed or given proper certification, it is a mistake which was not made in bad faith. The manager should get fined, but the guy who posted this shouldn't get fired (and if he does he should try and fight for severance) because the entire reason this whole thing happened is because either
A) his manager didn't pay for SIR
B) his manager didn't check if he had SIR
C) his manager didn't care if he had SIR or not.
It's attitudes like these which gives unions support.
We could get rid of unions if managers and businesses better train and pay their employees. Not exploit them.

Thank you. One of the reasons I am at times pro-union is the douchebag managerial mentality of "It's my store and there's a million other people out there who wish they had a job so you can fuck off if I feel like making you fuck off".

Sadly, it tends to get into a cycle:

Employee has bad manager. Employee gets union. Employee leaves store and goes to another place, possibly with good manager. Employee still has super-union attitudes because of previous bad management and walks all over new manager, making him Bad Manager.

Rinse and repeat...

[geeknerd]

What, are you from some fucking backwater third world country where employees are little more than paid slaves?

Damn straight we have rights here. Good fucking thing too or else assholes like you would be trying to "dock" pay of employees any chance you get.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Yea... I am from a third world country... Thats why i said "but this is canada"

yes by canadian acts,laws, you are at 0% fault. manager is digging himself into a deeper hole but just want to say

IF you knew about requiring a SIR cert before the incident, you shouldve at least gotten SIR or quit. Although its the managers onus, if you knew about it but continued to work, you were knowingly screwing the store and society (selling to minors) since you are not qualified for your job. and in fact did screw up by selling to a minor and getting the store fined $7500. kinda scumbag.

if you found out after; then be guilt-free.

Yes i am from a 3rd world and employees are little bit above slaves hence owners are kings :troll: but not really cuz its true.....

Anyways, everything your manager is doing is digging himself into a deeper hole.

edit: just read graeme s post. yea i know op is not liable but just wanted to point out IF op knew about his SIR requirement before the incident, then technically OPs incident was not a genuine act but in bad faith because he knew about SIR but didnt do anything about it??????/continued to work knowing he was not qualified/properly trained. (to clarify, although its 100% managers fault, if OP knew, i feel he shouldve done something about it just for the sake of helping out his manager and fulfilling his qualification and his legal responsibility/protecting the minors. hindsight, his manager can shove it.)

[Mananetwork]

Mystery shopper working for the BC Liquor board.. What a bunch of thieves! Going around checking if you ask for ID and if you don't, $7500 fine. What a load of fucking crap!
What happend with teaching employee's to ID more often then making them pay!

[deuel_1]

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 the Managers job to properly train his staff, he didn't do his job yet he is still collecting a check.

Upon termination he is legally obligated to pay all wages within 48hrs and he is not legally permitted to hold your wages for any purpose. Go to this website and look through the self help kit Employment Standards Branch, Ministry of Labour, Government of B.C. (http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/complaint.htm)
get the process started and dont back down.

[Noir]

Mystery shopper working for the BC Liquor board.. What a bunch of thieves! Going around checking if you ask for ID and if you don't, $7500 fine. What a load of fucking crap!
What happend with teaching employee's to ID more often then making them pay!

Quality control. I see no problem with it and it happens in more industries than you think.

[Great68]

Keep the third world ideals in the third world countries kthxbye.

[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]

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]

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

:suspicious:

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

[dangonay]

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]

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]

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.

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.:sweetjesus:

[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]

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]

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]

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 :lol)
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]

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]

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... :facepalm:

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]

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.