The British Columbia Employment Standards Tribunal has dismissed an appeal by Colonial Countertops Ltd. challenging a previous ruling that ordered the company to pay a former employee nearly $29,000 in unpaid overtime and associated penalties.
The case hinged on whether the employee, who held the title of “office manager,” was actually performing managerial duties or was instead entitled to overtime compensation under provincial law.
Employee’s role questioned
The central issue of the dispute was whether the complainant, who was employed by Colonial Countertops Ltd. from May 2016 until her resignation in September 2022, was truly a “manager” as defined under the Employment Standards Regulation.
According to the complainant, her duties as an office manager were largely unchanged from her previous role as a front desk worker, which included customer service tasks, taking orders, and assisting with hiring and firing, among other responsibilities. She argued that these tasks did not involve significant supervisory or executive responsibilities that would exempt her from overtime provisions under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).
The company, on the other hand, argued that the complainant’s role met the regulatory definition of a manager, which includes responsibilities such as supervising or directing human resources. The employer pointed to the fact that the complainant independently hired several employees and participated in weekly management meetings. Despite these assertions, the tribunal’s delegate concluded that the complainant’s duties did not principally involve supervising or directing staff, which would be necessary to classify her as a manager under the regulation.
Tribunal’s findings
The tribunal upheld the original determination that the complainant was not a manager and therefore was entitled to overtime pay. The decision noted that the complainant’s job duties remained “relatively unchanged” after her promotion to office manager, with her primary responsibilities still centered on customer service tasks rather than managerial functions.
The tribunal said the delegate’s findings were based on “a proper evidentiary foundation” and that there was no “palpable and overriding error” in the assessment of the complainant’s job duties. It found that the complainant’s role did not involve the level of authority or discretion typically associated with a managerial position, such as controlling financial resources or making executive decisions.
The tribunal also addressed the company’s argument that the complainant’s $10,000 bonus, paid in December 2021, should have been considered as compensation for overtime work. However, the tribunal agreed with the delegate’s conclusion that the bonus was not paid based on the number of overtime hours worked, but rather was a discretionary payment tied to the company’s profitability.
Employer’s appeal dismissed
Colonial Countertops Ltd. appealed the original determination on the grounds that the delegate erred in law and failed to observe the principles of natural justice. The company argued that the delegate had failed to properly consider the complainant’s job description and that the overtime claim was not credible, given that it was not raised until after the complainant’s resignation.
However, the tribunal found these arguments unpersuasive. The decision noted that the existence of a job description alone does not conclusively establish the nature of an employee’s actual duties. The tribunal emphasized that the delegate had appropriately focused on the complainant’s daily activities, rather than the formal job description, in determining her status.
Additionally, the tribunal dismissed the employer’s claim that the overtime request was a “windfall” attempt by the complainant, noting that the company was aware of the complainant’s regular practice of working through lunch and starting work earlier than required. The tribunal found that there was sufficient evidence to support the complainant’s claim of unpaid overtime, including her own records of hours worked.
Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the original determination, requiring Colonial Countertops Ltd. to pay the complainant $28,991.31, which includes $23,758.28 in unpaid overtime wages, $950.33 in vacation pay, and $2,282.70 in interest. The company was also ordered to pay four separate $500 penalties for violations of the ESA.
For more information, see Colonial Countertops Ltd. (Re), 2024 BCEST 69 (CanLII).
