New Brunswick worker’s claim for holiday pay, compensation for late training pay fails

Employer complied with requests for training pay and late pay stubs

New Brunswick worker’s claim for holiday pay, compensation for late training pay fails

A worker was not entitled to holiday pay during a two-month term of employment or extra compensation for his employer’s tardiness in paying him for training and other difficulties he experienced setting up his equipment, the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board has ruled.

The worker was employed with Manpower Services Canada, an employment agency, a Toronto-based employment services agency. In 2021, Manpower placed the worker in the position of accounts receivable adjustor for Purolator for a fixed period running from Feb. 18 to April 12, 2021.

The worker was provided with a fixed-term employment contract paying him $18 per hour for the two-month term. Before he started work, he was given training manuals to read and he had to pick up his laptop from Purolator. He then had to setup the laptop and equipment.

During his time with Purolator, there was one statutory holiday – Good Friday fell on April 2. However, he didn’t receive holiday pay because, under the New Brunswick Employment Standards Act (ESA), employees were only entitled to holiday pay if they had been working for their present employer for at least 90 days during the previous 12 calendar months.

Employment standards complaint

After time working with Purolator ended, the worker filed an employment standards complaint against Manpower claiming compensation for the time he spent reading training materials and obtaining and setting up the laptop. He also argued that he should be paid holiday pay because he had previously worked for Manpower from 2005 to 2008, putting his employment at more than 90 days. The worker also pointed out that Manpower had been consistently late in providing pay stubs, which also breached the ESA.

An employment standards officer investigated the complaint and determined that Manpower should have paid the worker for training and also violated the ESA by not providing pay stubs. The officer contacted Manpower and convinced them to pay the worker for three hours of training and setting up equipment – totalling $54 – and to provide two missing pay stubs to the worker.

The officer also found that the worker’s previous stint with Manpower was more than 12 calendar months before April 2, 2021, so the worker wasn’t entitled to any holiday pay. In addition, there was no provision in the ESA for paying an employee for picking up work equipment or penalizing the employer for “perceived difficulties” of the employee.

Since Manpower paid the worker for training and provided the pay stubs, the officer found that the company was no longer in violation of the ESA. As a result, the worker was not entitled to any more payments.

Worker wanted more compensation

The worker appealed to the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board, maintaining that he was owed more compensation for training and the statutory holiday, and that Manpower should have been penalized for providing late pay stubs.

The board agreed with the employment standards officer’s findings regarding holiday pay and the pay stubs. The ESA was clear that employees who had not worked at least 90 days in the 12 months prior to a statutory holiday were not entitled to holiday pay. The worker’s previous stint with Manpower was 11 years early, so the worker didn’t make the cut, said the board.

As for the pay stubs, Manpower provided them when requested, so it was no longer in violation of the ESA, the board said.

The board found that the worker’s employment contract did not have a provision addressing compensation for training or how much time should be spent reading the training manuals. However, it accepted that job training should be paid and, since the worker didn’t provide clear evidence on how much time he spent reading the manuals or setting up his work laptop, it was reasonable for the officer to request three hours’ pay for training and setup. Since Manpower paid the worker upon request by the officer, there was also no further breach of the ESA in this regard, said the board.

Like the officer, the board noted that there was no provision in the ESA allowing for penalties against Manpower for any difficulties the worker experienced because he had to pick up his laptop, wasn’t initially paid for training, or received his pay stubs late. Although late, Manpower ended up meeting its ESA obligations, said the board in affirming the officer’s decision and dismissing the worker’s appeal. See Bleakney v. Manpower Canada Services Ltd., 2023 CanLII 22210.

Recent articles & video

Alberta looking to create jobs investing over $50 million in Designated Industrial Zone

PTO requests up 9% year-over-year in April worldwide

Company ‘clones’ employees using AI

OECD unemployment stays at 4.9%

Most Read Articles

Three grocery workers hospitalized after attack

Canada Post should not have suspended remote workers over COVID-19 vaccination: arbitrator

P.E.I. encourages immigrants to train for in-demand jobs