Is my company allowed to do this?

[fuji]

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?

We have a published policy on what constitutes acceptable personal use of company equipment and employees receive the written policy as well as audio/visual training materials on the same.

In other words unlike these buffoons we have our ass covered.

 

[topoon]

We are charged to cover the costs of the network? It probably sounds rediculous to some of you but thats the way it is. They give us a gas bonus to cover our gas, but we are charged to use their "phone". Apparently thats how it works in the courier industry its like that for most companies

 

[fuji]

The theft of airtime or internet services is in fact a crime

The crime is "unauthorized use" of a computer service "fraudulently and without colour of right" and since he is authorized to use the device I do not think that applies. Where is the fraud? I do not see how he has committed any deception or anything else remotely fraudulent.

Whether he is using the device "appropriately" I think then is a pure contract question--what contract exists governing his use of the device? Since his company are a bunch of apes it appears they haven't bothered to specify any contract terms.

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.

However he has paid $70 for "network access". What has he bought for his $70? His position would be that he has bought UNLIMITED access to the network since the contract he has does not specify any limitation on the network access he has purchased from the company for $70.

Plainly this contract is ambiguous, but there is no reason to suppose that the ambiguity should be resolved entirely in favour of the employer. Had they wanted to limit what he purchased for $70 they should have written that in!

 

[tboy]

When the employee is provided a phone that is a requirement for the execution of their duties (in this case a Courier!) and is then charged $70 one would reasonably assume that the $70 is for their personal use.

My staff had cell phones and I charged them $20 per month for their personal use but told them that anything in excess of 200 minutes was charged back at cost, as was long distance. Among other reasons it woudl otherwise be considered a taxable benefit.

As fuji pointed out, this company is amateur hour anyways. Along with their lack of telephone policy, sounds like they are trying to fuck around by calling their employees "independent contractors" when in fact they are employees.

They'd be smart to just eat these charges and look at their phone deal.

"one would reasonably assume that the $70 is for their personal use."

You know what happens when you assume? U make an ass out of U and ME

Oh, so you DO argee that someone can deduct costs of unauthorized use of a cellphone? You said it was illegal. So are you admitting that you broke the law? (your argument not mine).

Why did you charge them anyways? Why wouldn't you just let them go crazy? And what would you have done if someone racked up $2000.00 worth of costs? Just say "oh well" I can't do anything about it? I think not....

Just one more thing before I sign off this thread cuz it ain't worth the typing:
1) Anyone with half a brain wouldn't use a company phone for personal use.
2) If someone WAS dumb enough to, they should man up and pay the cost of the charges they incurred as a result of their decision
3) I worked for 4 companies that provided cellphones and not one told me anything about personal use. I just used my noodle and didn't use it for personal business
4) If a company came to me and said: you have to pay me $70.00 for the phone I'm giving you I'd say F you, I'll use my own and charge you back or F you, I quit (and I actually DID that with one company who wouldn't reimburse me for my airtime charges on my personal phone when the company one wouldn't work in the US).

 

[escortsxxx]

Bascially the company is breaking a host of laws. It takes 2 years to sue/file for damages bascaily. Star the process secretly NOW. They wont here about if for a year. Keep documentation, but your stragedy really depends if you are going to work with them foerver, a year, or find a new job. Wiht a class action suit, if indeed they are breaking the law, you could easily net a few years pay from the whole affair, IF the coompnay is rich enought to live threw the experience. In practice, small companies , expecally stupid ones, declare bankrputcy and start anew as a new compnay. And in practice, someone smart enught to sue them should instead me making a note of their client list/employees who are bieng screwed and then leave in mass to fomr your own company. They can sue you indidvually for hte losses and HAVE zero legal right to with hold wages. They will, but they ahve to prove in court that you stole. To do that they ahve to charge you, and the police will NEVER let this go to court. There too buzy doing crap like this. tis a complex situation but bascially there breaking the law, with customs that most people think are legal. As a group hire one legal consultant/paralegal whatever if you wish, makes it economical and put the screws to them. If EVERONE is effected they will have to back off since its xmas and they can't affortd to lose there entie staff now. But again, it makes hte work place harder to deal with, and since there breaking the law I am sure they will beak the law in the future. Forming your own coperative is the best alternative opiton or sucking up some of it. Soft negotion also works, if the whole band of you refuse the terms and agree ok, in future we will pay but we will only pay for what you can prove is pesonal and at a reduced rate or 500 dolars off everyone , or some such deal. You can negoate from stregth. Theres lawyers paralegals on terb maybe one will give you a deal.

 

[CapitalGuy]

This is my favourite post in this entire thread:

This message is hidden because tboy is on your ignore list.

 

[fuji]

You know what happens when you assume? U make an ass out of U and ME

The company is making an equally large assumption. When the contract terms are completely unspecified as in this case it is anyone's guess what a court would decide.

Maybe the court would rule he has paid $70 for unlimited use of a cellphone. Maybe they would rule that it was for the work portion only. Maybe they would rule that it's completely ambiguous and split the difference between both sides.

The company he works for are a bunch of buffoons who have set up a completely ambiguous situation and if that comes back to bite them in the ass it serves them right.

2) If someone WAS dumb enough to, they should man up and pay the cost of the charges they incurred as a result of their decision

His side will be that he did pay: He paid $70 as agreed.

Plainly the company has a different side. Which is right? Who can say--it's all a big mess because nothing is specified anywhere and each party has walked away from the situation with a very different interpretation of what $70 paid for.

 

[fuji]

Topoon:

What you CAN'T do is silently accept their view. If you do that they will eventually prevail simply on the grounds that you never lodged any objection. The last thing you should do is not pay and hope they go away--eventually they will find a way to make you pay, deduct it from your payroll, etc.

What I would do is write up a nice polite letter something along the lines of:

"Dear Sirs,

I have an agreed contract with you under which we have agreed that I will pay you $70 for access to the cellphone network. No limitations were specified in this agreement, and it is therefore an agreement that you will provide to me unlimited personal and business use of a cellphone for the fee of $70 per month.

Note that I have reliably paid my $70 per month as agreed. You are now attempting to reneg on your side of the deal and charge me additional moneys beyond the $70 per month that we very plainly agreed to.

Your invoice to me for $700 is therefore spurious, and this is your formal notice of the same. I do expect you to continue to provide me with unlimited access to the cell network as agreed. As agreed, I will continue to make payments of $70 per month to you for this service.

If you would like to cancel the agreement that we have in place and initiate a new one going forward I would be happy to discuss terms with you at any time of your choosing. Please let me know what you prefer.

I trust that this minor dispute will not interfere with our otherwise excellent business relationship. I look forward to continuing to serve in your employ, your truly, Topoon"

Keep a copy and note carefully the date, time and place at which you delivered the communication to them, and anything that they said to youu. When they reply, whether in writing or verbablly, make careful note of the date and time and then take the issue to the labour board and/or small claim's court.

 

[tboy]

First of all, Thank you fuji for not getting into more name calling but something you missed in the OP's original post was where he plainly stated, in black and white, that the $70.00 for the cellphone was to (his own words):

" and allow us to make phone calls to clients and to our office." then in a subsequant post he plainly states that "The phones were locked from the internet originally, but one of our managers decided to unlock the phones so we could use the internet to use google maps"

That was plainly understood by the OP when the new phones were brought into service and why the phones were unlocked to allow net access.

How can that in any way shape of form be ambiguous? He obviously knew the phones were to be used to contact clients and the office and net access to download maps.........

 

[fuji]

Tboy I think you have to separate the OP's interpretation, which is probably a little confused on some of the points, from the actual documented facts. I agree that we don't have all the information here--Topoon has to take what we've said and put it together with what he DOES have documented and figure it out.

It's going to boil down to who can prove what and without a written contract clearly stating what he got, and did not get, for his $70/m, I think his employer is exposed.

 

[thompo69]

Oh, so you DO argee that someone can deduct costs of unauthorized use of a cellphone? You said it was illegal. So are you admitting that you broke the law? (your argument not mine).

There is a BIG difference between charging an employee for costs incurred, and automatically deducting it from their pay cheque. When I incur costs, my employer doesn't take it off my pay (which is what he was saying was illegal), they send me a bill and I write them a cheque.

 

[willie]

the terb legal team should just make a decision and bill the company its cost for using its brains and split it with the op
=willie

 

[RTRD]

Lol!!!!

This message is hidden because tboy is on your ignore list.

Good one!!!

 

[whitmore]

Sorry, you posted in an open forum and you can't chose who can respond or who can't.....so, take it or leave it or block me, it's that simple.

You admitted that the phones were provided by the company. It is naive to think that you shouldn't be using them for personal use and whether or not the company openly stated that you shouldn't, is kind of like saying to you "you can't use the company vehicles to help your brother move, go to the cottage, cruise yonge st on saturday night etc".

Yes, it IS theft if you don't repay them for YOUR personal use of company property and in this case, the property IS airtime.

Sorry if you find me annoying, I wonder if you would say the same thing if I posted what you wanted to hear? I bet not......if I said "oh you poor baby, they can't DO that to you"....you'd feel a LOT different.

Ever heard of the saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Well it applies here....

You said you worked there until yesterday. Does that mean you quit yesterday? If you did I will be you your final paycheque will be minus your personal use of company phone costs......

If they don't deduct it from your cheque you can bet a bill will be coming in the mail and a subsequent lawsuit if you don't pay.

I mean really, did you honestly think that you could use company property for your own purposes and not have to pay for it? Did you really think that they'd just cover your airtime and surfing?

BTW: I doubt they were "connected" 24/7. They probably only actually connect to the network when you're loading a page, actually transmitting an email, or actually sending or receiving data. If they were connected 24/7 you'd have an airtime charge of something like 604800 seconds a week.

Please refer to section 13.5, subsection b line ii of the Canadian Labour Standards act 2000 in regards to withholding or deducting from employee wages:

"(ii) because the employer had a cash shortage, lost property or had property stolen and a person other than the employee had access to the cash or property..."

here's a link to the act:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_00e41_e.htm#BK14

Now you could argue that cellular airtime is not real "property" but does have a value and an associated cost.

My understanding of this section is that the employer can not simply garnish your wages as seen fit. I bet you can fight it. If a few pooled money together a lawyer may listen.

How did the employer determine everyone's bill? The manager was an idiot for unlocking the internet. GPS is a one time cost.

Someone screwed up and is trying to recover his/her own credibility.

 

[Aardvark154]

Topoon

You really need the advice of a Lawyer who specializes in Labour Law.

My recomendations therefore are:

1) Contact the Labour Board

2) Take a look at he Law Society of Upper Canada's Lawyer Referral Service


3) If those don't work contact either the

University of Toronto Faculty of Law


or

Osgoode Hall Law School


and see what their public interest clinic can do for you

 

[WinterHawk]

I'm betting that most of the costs came from searching the internet via Googlemaps at 3¢ per MB. That could amount to $100's a month on Rogers. Whoever did up the original deal probably decided that you shouldn't have access to keep the costs down, and then a second manager unlocked the phones, probably for his own use. Probably couldn't get just his phone unlocked and decided to unlock everyone's so he wouldn't get the blame.

 

[alexmst]

and then a second manager unlocked the phones, probably for his own use. Probably couldn't get just his phone unlocked and decided to unlock everyone's so he wouldn't get the blame.

Yes, that sounds right.

I worked for a company in the mid-90's and one VP wanted his g/f at work to get laser eye correction (which in the U.S. at that time was $5000.) He didn't want to pay for it out of his own pocket so he changed the company medical policy to allow the proceedure free to all employees and tried to keep the news below the radar. Others found out after she had the proceedure and talked about it to co-workers and 40 other people elected to have it done since it was now covered and free. The company changed it back to not being covered, but legal said they had to give 30 days notice and cover anyone who wanted to sign up to have it done during the 30 days - they had to cover spouses and family members of employees too. It cost them hundreds of thousands before it was removed as a benefit.

 

[alexmst]

Fuji's letter to the company is a good idea - type it up and hand it in and see what the official response is.

 

[fuji]

I would expect the official response to be "go fuck yourself" but topoon should use that official response as the starting point of a negotiation process.

"Well you know my position, and although I strenuously disagree, I understand your position too. We have a great relationship, so how do we settle thing fairly so that we don't wind up duking it out through some silly legal process?"

My advice is for topoon during that conversation to:

1. Remain calm, smile a lot, be friendly, hide anger, do not become emotional no matter how ridiculous or insulting they get

2. Remain firm on the points that he has an agreement to buy internet/cell service for $70/month, and point out that it was a company manager who enabled that access, and claim that the charges are mostly work related anyway

3. Express an interest in coming to a mutually agreeable settlement "for the sake of our relationship" or some other such thing

4. Be prepared to walk away and take it to the labour board, but do not make any threats, etc. as that will get their back up and reduce the chances of a negotiated solution

5. Have an idea of what you think a reasonable settlement is before this starts--would you settle if the company paid half the cost? 80% Or will only 100% satisfy you? Bear in mind a legal process isn't guaranteed to be a win for you either.

In other words be tough and firm but friendly and calm and see whether the other side will become reasonable too. Start out tough (with that letter) but show a willingness to work things out and try and achieve something fair.

The purpose of the opening salvo, the letter, is to drive home the point that they are on shakey legal ground and that a legal settlement will not necessarily be in their favour.

 

[needinit]

We had previously used walki talkie type phones which we received text messages with all the information for each call. We were charged 70 per month to use these walkie talkies. 3 months ago the company switched from telus to rogers and my company gave us these new HTC touch phones which are connected to the net 24/7, and allow us to make phone calls to clients and to our office. We signed one sheet of paper that simply stated if we lose or damage the phones we will be responsible to replace them..ie $350. We still pay $70 per month to use the new phones.

Apparently my company is on a horrible plan with rogers and over the last three months these phones have racked up bills in the $500-$3000 range because of phone and internet network usage. 3 days ago my company sent out a text informing us that we are not supposed to use the phones for anything non work related and that if we do we will be charged for it.

If the phones are strictly for business use, then the company should be providing them to you - after all it is their business and the usage of these clearly noted (i.e. employees would be billed for personal use of the phone).

When you were paying $70 per month I hope you were also claiming that as a tax deduction as well?

I feel that if you had to pay for your 'communication' tools, then you would also be free to use your own phone etc and send submit re-imbursements for the company use of your phone.

Even if the company gave you the phone, I think it is fair that if lost the employee would have to pay for the replacement.

As you are paying for your equipment, are you actually an employee or sub-contractor? (Do you also pay for your courier transportation - bike, motorbike, car etc) and/or uniform (if you have one)?

I would defintely call the labour board and read through the employment act to clarify your situation - a few well placed phone calls and a bit of research on your part may save you and the others a lot of money!