Read the facts of this case and decide for yourself — B.C. Supreme Court takes a look at ESA’s definition of manager
This instalment of You Make the Call takes a look at whether or not a British Columbia worker was a “manager” as defined by the province’s Employment Standards Act.
The legislation sets out certain minimal rights that employees must be accorded in B.C. Among those rights are the right to overtime pay and pay for statutory holidays. Under the act, managers are not entitled to overtime pay and pay for statutory holidays. The acts defines a manager as a “person whose principal employment responsibilities consist of supervising or directing, or both supervising and directing, human or other resources.”
The employee, Mr. Foucher, worked for J.P. Metal Masters in Maple Ridge, B.C. An employment standards tribunal ruled Foucher was not a manager and therefore entitled to overtime pay and pay for statutory holidays. The director of employment standards described Foucher’s work as follows: “All he did was check on whether work was done on the site. He would run and get whatever was needed to keep the work going. He worked (at various) construction sites. He considered himself to be a leadhand. The only policies he enforced were in regards to wearing hardhats and attending the weekly safety meeting as required by WCB.”
The tribunal summarized the situation as follows:
“The evidence in this case was that Foucher made no decisions regarding hiring, firing, evaluating, disciplining, setting or changing of schedules, calling employees in to work, authorizing overtime, time off or leaves of absence. He had limited (and uncertain) authority regarding the use of company resources. He monitored the work of three to five employees but made no independent decisions relating to work processes or work performed.”
The employer appealed the tribunal’s ruling to the B.C. Supreme Court. Both parties agreed that the court could only quash the tribunal’s decision if it was “patently unreasonable.”
You make the call
Was the worker a manager?
OR
Did the employment standards tribunal get it right?
If you said the employment standards tribunal was right, you’re correct. Justice Groberman of the B.C. Supreme Court pointed out that the tribunal’s findings were largely of a negative nature — there was limited discussion of what Foucher actually did.
“It might have been better if the tribunal had included more affirmative findings in its reasons,” said Justice Groberman. “Nonetheless, it is apparent that the tribunal considered the essential attributes of direction and supervision and found those essential attributes were not exemplified in the principal duties of Mr. Foucher.”
The picture that emerged of Foucher’s work is one in which he was responsible for monitoring the work of employees in the sense of recording it and reporting back to management.
“He did not, however, take on any appreciable role in deciding what work was to be done, in deciding how it was to be done or in evaluating, disciplining or directing the work of employees,” said Justice Groberman.
The employer argued the tribunal focused too much on the fact Foucher’s principal responsibilities did not include directing other employees. It pointed out the definition of manager speaks of “supervising or directing” and it urged the court to find that mere monitoring of employees fell within the term of “supervising” if not within the term “directing.”
But Justice Groberman said the court was “far from convinced” that the legislation intended to set out two distinct watertight compartments in using the phrase “supervising or directing.”
For more information see:
• J.P. Metal Masters 2000 Inc. v. British Columbia (Director of Employment Standards), 2006 BCSC 928.
The legislation sets out certain minimal rights that employees must be accorded in B.C. Among those rights are the right to overtime pay and pay for statutory holidays. Under the act, managers are not entitled to overtime pay and pay for statutory holidays. The acts defines a manager as a “person whose principal employment responsibilities consist of supervising or directing, or both supervising and directing, human or other resources.”
The employee, Mr. Foucher, worked for J.P. Metal Masters in Maple Ridge, B.C. An employment standards tribunal ruled Foucher was not a manager and therefore entitled to overtime pay and pay for statutory holidays. The director of employment standards described Foucher’s work as follows: “All he did was check on whether work was done on the site. He would run and get whatever was needed to keep the work going. He worked (at various) construction sites. He considered himself to be a leadhand. The only policies he enforced were in regards to wearing hardhats and attending the weekly safety meeting as required by WCB.”
The tribunal summarized the situation as follows:
“The evidence in this case was that Foucher made no decisions regarding hiring, firing, evaluating, disciplining, setting or changing of schedules, calling employees in to work, authorizing overtime, time off or leaves of absence. He had limited (and uncertain) authority regarding the use of company resources. He monitored the work of three to five employees but made no independent decisions relating to work processes or work performed.”
The employer appealed the tribunal’s ruling to the B.C. Supreme Court. Both parties agreed that the court could only quash the tribunal’s decision if it was “patently unreasonable.”
You make the call
Was the worker a manager?
OR
Did the employment standards tribunal get it right?
If you said the employment standards tribunal was right, you’re correct. Justice Groberman of the B.C. Supreme Court pointed out that the tribunal’s findings were largely of a negative nature — there was limited discussion of what Foucher actually did.
“It might have been better if the tribunal had included more affirmative findings in its reasons,” said Justice Groberman. “Nonetheless, it is apparent that the tribunal considered the essential attributes of direction and supervision and found those essential attributes were not exemplified in the principal duties of Mr. Foucher.”
The picture that emerged of Foucher’s work is one in which he was responsible for monitoring the work of employees in the sense of recording it and reporting back to management.
“He did not, however, take on any appreciable role in deciding what work was to be done, in deciding how it was to be done or in evaluating, disciplining or directing the work of employees,” said Justice Groberman.
The employer argued the tribunal focused too much on the fact Foucher’s principal responsibilities did not include directing other employees. It pointed out the definition of manager speaks of “supervising or directing” and it urged the court to find that mere monitoring of employees fell within the term of “supervising” if not within the term “directing.”
But Justice Groberman said the court was “far from convinced” that the legislation intended to set out two distinct watertight compartments in using the phrase “supervising or directing.”
For more information see:
• J.P. Metal Masters 2000 Inc. v. British Columbia (Director of Employment Standards), 2006 BCSC 928.
