Is my company allowed to do this?

[Hiding]

$700 for internet use over 3-4 months? You only get charged when data is transferred (emails sent/received, webpages loaded) so connection 24-7 is irrelevant, no?

I check addresses and check email over my phone. I pay $30/month for 1GB of data. Have you seen the breakdown of your bill? Unless you're doing a LOT (I answer upwards of 80 emails a day) of data transfer there's no way your rates are right.

Phone use for personal calls (the $2000-$3000 guys) is a debate, but if your work was requiring you to check these things, didn't put a plan in place for data transfer, and expects you to cover it you may have a point for the BBB, but you'd better make sure you get a cost breakdown so you know exactly what the charges are before you talk to anyone.

 

[MarkII]

Pondering this thread, the question I have is this. Did they make the same demand of the office staff for personal calls and web browsing other than biz?

If they did not, perhaps you have a "case" to make in negotiating the amount lower.

 

[tboy]

Hiding has a good point but with cellphone rates outside of the agreed to plan, costs skyrocket in no time at all. If the company had a 'daily' plan with no evening or weekend hours the costs can go up quite quickly.

As for the office staff net usage etc: since there is no associated cost to have them surf from the office, the only recourse to them would be a time out. (landline net connection costs the same whether you surf for a minute or an hour).

Same as for personal calls: they are probably frowned upon but as there is no associated cost associated then I don't know what the recourse could be. I know in every company I worked for we had to account for any long distance calls every month........(from the office).

We also had to account for airtime usage on our company provided cellphones which is why I (and everyone I know who has a company provided cell) has a personal cell as well as a company cell......

 

[biog]

Topoon. I would think that if the company didn't explecitly tell you that you couldn't use the phone for personal use, then you might have a case. Common sense would be that you don't use company equipment like that, but in this day and age I would think that the employer would have to produce documentation stating you were told not to.

I could be completely wrong though

 

[tboy]

Topoon. I would think that if the company didn't explecitly tell you that you couldn't use the phone for personal use, then you might have a case. Common sense would be that you don't use company equipment like that, but in this day and age I would think that the employer would have to produce documentation stating you were told not to.

I could be completely wrong though

I was thinking of that also but then, did they expressly tell them they COULD use it for personal use? (which they would have to for that argument to hold true).

 

[3Tees]

It's a $700 claim. There is no point in talking to any lawyer who actually knows anything about employment law for this kind of money.

Best advice is quit and get another job with an employer who has more reasonable working conditions.

Let me clarify. The original poster said that ALL of the employees were subject to the same measures and that some of them were being charged $2,000. The Original Poster may wish to see if a single lawyer could do something for ALL the employees - thus making it worthwhile. ALL or some of the employees may wish to split the fees. This should be discussed during the initial consultation.

Also (and to the OP, do not take this as a given), it is fairly common that if there is judgment AGAINST the defendant (i.e. the OP's employer), then the defendant is typically ordered to pay the legal fees of the plaintiff thus making the issue of scale irrelevant.

 

[tboy]

Rub?

You really need a pair of glasses or to go back and take reading comp...

NO WHERE DID THE OP STATE THAT THEY TOLD HIM HE COULD USE THE PHONE FOR PERSONAL USE! HE SPECIFICALLY STATES THE PHONE WAS TO BE USED TO "....and allow us to make phone calls to clients and to our office. "

As for talking out of my ass, go back and read the statute link that I posted: it specifically states that an employer can withhold wages in cases of theft and unauthorized use of company property is THEFT.

It is NO different than the OP using the company van without authorization for personal use. He would and could be charged with theft of company property if he did.

Just because they didn't say he COULDN'T use the phone doesn't mean he COULD.

You do bring up an interesting point though: why the hell is he paying for a phone that is provided by the company?

 

[fuji]

A few questions and points:

(a) How do they know the $700 wasn't work related? Can they prove that it was for personal use?

(b) I think that the company could be made to share in the liability as in part it arises from their failure to communicate properly that there were charges and that the phones were not being provided for unlimited use, as they always had been previously.

(c) I think the company can be especially held liable if managers went in and disabled a security feature that was there to prevent you from suffering these charges

As for "theft" tboy is as usual full of shit. If it's theft let them try and bring a charge of theft against you--it'll be laughed out of court.

Common sense should have told you that it was unlikely to be the case that the internet usage on the phone was free--you must have known you were generating a large bill for the company when you did that, at a minimum.

On the other hand common sense would also dictate that the company clearly inform employees that any personal use of the phone would be paid for out of their own pockets.

My bet is if you fight this you get at least some of the $700 back. It is worth contacting the labour board and asking them whether this is something they could cover; if not you could try small claims court. Both avenues are relatively inexpensive.

 

[tboy]

A couple of mistakes on Fuji's part:

Where did you get the idea that the original phones were unlimited use? The op didn't state that......sure, they were probably digitially limited to whom they could contact but that doesn't mean their use was "unlimited".

As for being full of shit: you're an employer, do YOU let your staff use their company phones for personal use? Do you let them make unlimited photocopies of invitations to their kid's 11th birthday party? Do you let them borrow company vehicles whenever they want to help someone move? Do you let them use courier services for personal use and not pay for it?

I bet you don't and as for it being theft, unauthorized use of company property resulting in a cost to the company without recourse or reimbursement by the employee is THEFT EOS.

 

[danmand]

As for talking out of my ass, go back and read the statute link that I posted: it specifically states that an employer can withhold wages in cases of theft and unauthorized use of company property is THEFT.

It is NO different than the OP using the company van without authorization for personal use. He would and could be charged with theft of company property if he did.

Just because they didn't say he COULDN'T use the phone doesn't mean he COULD.

Theft??? are you out of your mind?

Are you claiming your entire internet access cost as a business expense?

 

[fuji]

I think a case can be made for a reasonable expectation that they were unlimited use. The argument would be that management did several things that implied that they WERE available for unlimited use, just as the previous phones were available for unlimited use. Perhaps management gave people the impression that the $70 covered any and all use of the phones.

Also the "company property" line does not strictly hold up since the employees pay $70 out of their own pocket towards the phones. That means they aren't strictly company property.

 

[tboy]

Theft??? are you out of your mind?

Are you claiming your entire internet access cost as a business expense?

two totally unrelated questions.

If unauthorized use of company property ISN'T theft, what is it then? It sure isn't legal........and the OP most certainly is responsible for any costs to the company he incurred.

 

[fuji]

If unauthorized use of company property ISN'T theft, what is it then? It sure isn't legal

At worst it's a violation of an employment contract and grounds for dismissal with cause. However since in this case there is no employment contract it's hard to see what it would be in violation of.

 

[danmand]

two totally unrelated questions.

So it is OK claim personal expenses as business expenses to CRA?

 

[fuji]

The company in this case is operating in a legal grey area that can and hopefully will bite them in the ass:

(1) They have not got even so much as a written contract of employment with their employees

(2) They have not published any sort of acceptable use policy dealing with appropriate use of company equipment

(3) They have not clearly specified the ownership of the phones or what the $70 the employees pay is for

(4) They failed to inform employees of the nature of charges they may face in using the devices

(5) They did not clearly specify what constitutes work, versus non-work use of the equipment

(6) Company managers defeated a security feature of the phone which was presumably there to protect employees from exorbitant charges

(7) The company failed to alert the employees in a timely fashion that they were generating excessive charges and failed to take steps to mitigate those charges

Plainly the employees could have used some common sense as well in their use of the phones--but with this many questionable practices by the employer I can't imagine how the employer will escape this without some liability.

It sounds like amateur hour at this business--they don't know what they are doing and their fuckups have harmed their employees.

 

[tboy]

At worst it's a violation of an employment contract and grounds for dismissal with cause. However since in this case there is no employment contract it's hard to see what it would be in violation of.

So, answer my questions: do you (as an employer) allow your employees to use office supplies, make long distance calls, and use company vehicles for personal use without reimbursement to the company?

Sorry, but EVERY company I have been employed at charges for these things and if you don't pay, you are legally responsible for them.

BTW: why am I so sure of this? One company I worked for had a 5 ton truck and a cube van. One weekend we went to use it for company business and it wasn't there. We later found out another employee had "borrowed" it to help someone move. I was in the GM's office and heard one half of the conversation with their lawyer and it was indicated that the employee a) could be charged with theft and b) had to pay for the fuel consumed (and not replaced) and if they DIDN'T pay, they'd be charged with theft.

Put it another way: if an employee uses a corporate owned credit card to purchase air time for his personal pay as you go phone, is THAT theft if he doesn't reimburse the company for it?

 

[tboy]

The company in this case is operating in a legal grey area that can and hopefully will bite them in the ass:

(1) They have not got even so much as a written contract of employment with their employees

(2) They have not published any sort of acceptable use policy dealing with appropriate use of company equipment

(3) They have not clearly specified the ownership of the phones or what the $70 the employees pay is for

(4) They failed to inform employees of the nature of charges they may face in using the devices

(5) They did not clearly specify what constitutes work, versus non-work use of the equipment

(6) Company managers defeated a security feature of the phone which was presumably there to protect employees from exorbitant charges

(7) The company failed to alert the employees in a timely fashion that they were generating excessive charges and failed to take steps to mitigate those charges

Plainly the employees could have used some common sense as well in their use of the phones--but with this many questionable practices by the employer I can't imagine how the employer will escape this without some liability.

It sounds like amateur hour at this business--they don't know what they are doing and their fuckups have harmed their employees.

Do you have all that for YOUR company? Specifically outlining what your employees can and can't use? Do you list each item specifically? For eg:
1) Employees cannot take pens home with them
2) Employees cannot send or receive faxes
3) employees cannot check personal emails on the company computer?
4) Employees cannot use the photocopier for personal use?

If you're going to have that kind of "book" you better buy a warehouse to keep them in because you'll need a 10,000 page contract for each employee....

 

[landscaper]

I expect most companies don't have as part of their employment contracts you can not steal paper or office supplies, it would be assumed that criminal acts are not allowed. The theft of airtime or internet services is in fact a crime, Rogers and every other provider has a large security department for just that reason.

The question is whether or not the " employee " had the right to use the units for personal use. In this case I would guess that a court would say no as the units were provided for a specific purpose.

If you challange the employer on this you will probably get firered and the money will be deducted from you check and then you will have to sue to get it back, that comes under the good luck heading.

If you are staying there suck it up and be thankful you weren't browsing terb on the phone between calls

 

[tboy]

Be careful landscaper: keep up with that talk and you'll have the wraith of rub on your hands lol

 

[spankingman]

can my company do tis

If it is a company phone why are YOU being charged 70 bucks for its useage??