Employer withholding pay

OU812

Stateofyou wrote: »

Why are you playing the blame game? It's NO ONE'S fault. There is human fault, that is a fact of life, and then we have here negligence or apathy by the employer. If there's a fault here, it's that attitude.

Why should they have to track down hours? Because it is their JOB. Or it should be, like is common place in many workplaces. Why are there HR depts. who deal with a whole range of employee relations responsibilities? Because people are people and you throw them together in a workplace, add in life issues and family responsibilities, egos and stress and presto **** happens. The real question is, why should anyone even have to explain that. It's common sense. It's not productive to play the blame game. The OP's workplace needs a better structure and solution because humans will ALWAYS cause human error, and other humans should know that and allow for it. Not a difficult concept.

There is blame here.

The supervisor completed their duty of compiling the hours the employee was due to be paid for.

- this is an opportunity for the employee to dispute the payment if need be & make sure they are properly compensated.

The employee was lax in their duty to authorise the payment.

Stateofyou

OU812 wrote: »

There is blame here.

The supervisor completed their duty of compiling the hours the employee was due to be paid for.

- this is an opportunity for the employee to dispute the payment if need be & make sure they are properly compensated.

The employee was lax in their duty to authorise the payment.

It's like beating your head against a brick wall here. I've made my point enough.

What would happen if the supervisor forgot to complete their duty of submitting hours? I'm sure it's happened or will and I'd bet allowances and adjustments would be made to correct it. As there should be.

If people aren't allowed for any error in the workplace, and policy's especially for pay are nonsensical and unhelpful to the point it would result in losing pay for a month, I would take myself to a more humane employer.
OP-hope your employer is flexible enough to make a payment to you in the interim.

OU812

Stateofyou wrote: »

It's like beating your head against a brick wall here. I've made my point enough.

What would happen if the supervisor forgot to complete their duty of submitting hours? I'm sure it's happened or will and I'd bet allowances and adjustments would be made to correct it. As there should be.

If people aren't allowed for any error in the workplace, and policy's especially for pay are nonsensical and unhelpful to the point it would result in losing pay for a month, I would take myself to a more humane employer.
OP-hope your employer is flexible enough to make a payment to you in the interim.

I feel somewhat the same.

If the supervisor was remiss in their duty, then it’s on the company to make payment.

But it’s not the supervisor at fault, it’s the employee.

Jim2007

rock22 wrote: »

I think there is an arguable case that what the employer has done is illegal. It would be well to go to your union official.

There is a n obligation on the employer to issue a statement of earnings and to make the relevant payment as soon as possible (""relevant payment is made by a mode specified in section 2 (1) (f), as soon as may be thereafter,)
There is no provision to delay payment not is there any provision for demanding agreement from the employer that the statement is correct. in other words, an employee could say "I will not check and/or authorise the statement" and the employer still has the obligation to pay the amount specified "as soon as may be thereafter,".

As any solicitor will tell you there is no wages dues since the employee failed to approve the timesheet.

Dav010

Kevin Irving wrote: »

If we were to introduce a law to say that overstaying a parking ticket was a mandatory prison sentence, I'm sure you would be defending it saying "if you want to avoid prison, making it back to your car in time should be extremely important to you".

Put another way, do you think the punishment fits the crime so to speak?

Though this is a peculiar analogy to use to make your point, if a statute lays down a punishment for breaking a law, ignorance of the law is not a defence, neither is “I forgot”.

Stateofyou

OU812 wrote: »

I feel somewhat the same.

If the supervisor was remiss in their duty, then it’s on the company to make payment.

But it’s not the supervisor at fault, it’s the employee.

But they are BOTH employees of the same company. So when a supervisor makes an error it's on the company to help fix that person's error. When it's a non-supervisor who's made the error, it's not on the company to help and tough luck on the suboordinate, it's their own fault?

Dav010

Stateofyou wrote: »

But they are BOTH employees of the same company. So when a supervisor makes an error it's on the company to help fix that person's error. When it's a non-supervisor who's made the error, it's not on the company to help and tough luck on the suboordinate, it's their own fault?

A payroll supervisor acts on behalf of the company to pay wages, if they make a mistake, the employer is making a mistake and must rectify it. That is not the case here though, it’s the employee who has made a mistake, therefore delaying, not denying wages being paid.

In this case, yes, it is “their own fault” for not approving hours. Wages are not being denied, there is a delay caused by the op forgetting to click on a tab. Nothing more, he/she will get two months pay early next month.

Stateofyou

Dav010 wrote: »

A payroll supervisor acts on behalf of the company to pay wages, if they make a mistake, the employer is making a mistake and must rectify it. That is not the case here though, it’s the employee who has made a mistake, therefore delaying, not denying wages being paid.

In this case, yes, it is “their own fault” for not approving hours. Wages are not being denied, there is a delay caused by the op forgetting to click on a tab. Nothing more, he/she will get two months pay early next month.

I see your point. I don't think we'll agree with each other on this though. An employee also works on behalf of the company. So it stands the payroll dept and supervisor should be rectifying any mistake made whether it's a member of the payroll dept or another dept.

Delaying vs denying wages is just getting into the weeds unnecessarily. Payroll depts. as a function of human resources should be ensuring employees are paid. I would wager a large sum that if someone in the payroll dept forgot to press the almighty button, they'd follow up on that quick enough! Or if it was a supervisor, or manager or anyone higher up.

Any half decent and supportive payroll dept would follow up on unsubmitted hours, especially when the hours are already input and pay is only once a month. We'll just have to agree to disagree!

Seve OB

OU812 wrote: »

Why is it my fault if you neglect to do what you’re supposed to do?

Look at it this way, if someone is processing many payments for people, why should they have to go track down who didn’t do what they’re supposed to. All that will do is reinforce that everyone can be lax in their duty.

If you’re lucky enough to have an automatic payment process, then you’re grand, but if you getting paid is dependent on taking a maximum of five minutes to press a button online (particularly when everyone is walking around with a connected computer in their pocket), then you make a point of doing it.

Set a recurring reminder, take five minutes, jump online & press the button. It’s the OP’s failure to take responsibility for this that has led to the situation, NOT the employer.

I don’t walk around with a connected computer in my pocket

Dav010

Seve OB wrote: »

I don’t walk around with a connected computer in my pocket

Perhaps “connectable computer” may have been a more apt description, just in case you need help, he/she is talking about a smartphone.

Seve OB

Dav010 wrote: »

Perhaps “connectable computer” may have been a more apt description, just in case you need help, he/she is talking about a smartphone.

Which I don’t have

Jim2007

Stateofyou wrote: »

I see your point. I don't think we'll agree with each other on this though. An employee also works on behalf of the company. So it stands the payroll dept and supervisor should be rectifying any mistake made whether it's a member of the payroll dept or another dept.

Delaying vs denying wages is just getting into the weeds unnecessarily. Payroll depts. as a function of human resources should be ensuring employees are paid. I would wager a large sum that if someone in the payroll dept forgot to press the almighty button, they'd follow up on that quick enough! Or if it was a supervisor, or manager or anyone higher up.

Any half decent and supportive payroll dept would follow up on unsubmitted hours, especially when the hours are already input and pay is only once a month. We'll just have to agree to disagree!

How much actually experience do have of running a business, managing a payroll etc?????

Many companies have outsourced their payroll, employ someone for couple of hours every week/month to come in and to the payroll etc... expecting them to go above and beyond is just not going to happen.

Likewise, expecting any business to incur extra expenses to deal with johnny because he could not follow the procedure is also not going to happen.

Stateofyou

Jim2007 wrote: »

How much actually experience do have of running a business, managing a payroll etc?????

Many companies have outsourced their payroll, employ someone for couple of hours every week/month to come in and to the payroll etc... expecting them to go above and beyond is just not going to happen.

Likewise, expecting any business to incur extra expenses to deal with johnny because he could not follow the procedure is also not going to happen.

Eh... is my whole working life good enough for you? As well as being part of those necessary processes - one does not need to actually manage them or run a business to know how it operates. Moot point.

To say that taking 30 seconds to send an email to someone who hasn't submitted hours is "going above and beyond" is absurd.

It is going to happen, actually, for the simple fact it already does in companies here and worldwide. Most would see it simply as best practice. Because it is.

Stateofyou

Jim2007 wrote: »

Likewise, expecting any business to incur extra expenses to deal with johnny because he could not follow the procedure is also not going to happen.

Please do outline the extraordinary and unbearable cost to the business of sending a few extra proactive emails occasionally.

kirving

OU812 wrote: »

Why is it my fault if you neglect to do what you’re supposed to do?

.....

Set a recurring reminder, take five minutes, jump online & press the button. It’s the OP’s failure to take responsibility for this that has led to the situation, NOT the employer.

Yeah, we get that it's the employee's "fault" for not clicking the button.

The issue we have here is the company, or payroll admin, being either incredibly lazy, or just plain vindictive in their "it's not my job to check" attitude, which would also only the 5 minutes.

I somehow doubt that the OP would be paid 10 times as much if they typed 400 hours instead of 40.

Dav010 wrote: »

Though this is a peculiar analogy to use to make your point, if a statute lays down a punishment for breaking a law, ignorance of the law is not a defence, neither is “I forgot”.

Look, I've asked twice now if you think the outcome is fair, and you have avoided the question.

Presumably because you have enough empathy for the OP's situation to know that it's a very difficult situation for a tiny oversight.

It should have been caught by the same checks and balances that would prevent the OP being paid too much in case of submitting extra hours.

I guess that doesn't fit with the "personal responsibility" agenda though.

Dav010

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Yeah, we get that it's the employee's "fault" for not clicking the button.

The issue we have here is the company, or payroll admin, being either incredibly lazy, or just plain vindictive in their "it's not my job to check" attitude, which would also only the 5 minutes.

I somehow doubt that the OP would be paid 10 times as much if they typed 400 hours instead of 40.



Look, I've asked twice now if you think the outcome is fair, and you have avoided the question.

Presumably because you have enough empathy for the OP's situation to know that it's a very difficult situation for a tiny oversight.

It should have been caught by the same checks and balances that would prevent the OP being paid too much in case of submitting extra hours.

I guess that doesn't fit with the "personal responsibility" agenda though.

Why would you be interested in whether another poster thinks it is fair? The op asked if the employer is allowed to delay payment due to the op not confirming hours worked, the WRC, the arbitrator in such matters, has informed the op that there is no specific legislation to prevent this.

Whether you or I agree with this, or think the employer is being lazy or vindictive, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a problem of the op’s making. Pay is delayed, not with held, because the op didn’t follow the protocol for getting paid.

jimmycrackcorm

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Yeah, we get that it's the employee's "fault" for not clicking the button.

The issue we have here is the company, or payroll admin, being either incredibly lazy, or just plain vindictive in their "it's not my job to check" attitude, which would also only the 5 minutes.

I somehow doubt that the OP would be paid 10 times as much if they typed 400 hours instead of 40.


Look, I've asked twice now if you think the outcome is fair, and you have avoided the question.

Presumably because you have enough empathy for the OP's situation to know that it's a very difficult situation for a tiny oversight.

It should have been caught by the same checks and balances that would prevent the OP being paid too much in case of submitting extra hours.

I guess that doesn't fit with the "personal responsibility" agenda though.

You have no idea how the payroll system works and are making assumptions. Particularly if it is outsourced. Because there is an online system, it sounds largely automated and exceptions may be only validated or prevented for over the expected number of hours.

In my work we have to log project work. The system prevents me from putting in extra hours but only flags missing hours in the reports in the following month.

kirving

Dav010 wrote: »

Why would you be interested in whether another poster thinks it is fair? The op asked if the employer is allowed to delay payment due to the op not confirming hours worked, the WRC, the arbitrator in such matters, has informed the op that there is no specific legislation to prevent this.

Whether you or I agree with this, or think the employer is being lazy or vindictive, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a problem of the op’s making. Pay is delayed, not with held, because the op didn’t follow the protocol for getting paid.

You're still diverting from the question. You know it shouldn't have happened, but are much more concerned with repeatedly staying how easy the process is, than with how fair the outcome is.

Delayed for a few days I would understand, even a week. A month is ridiculous. Only allowing approval on the last day of the month is also needlessly onerous.

Have you ever gone out of your way to help someone when they were stuck (like change a tyre, swap cash for coins at the bus stop, or help carry something), or do you just remind them how you wouldn't make that mistake and keep on walking?

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You have no idea how the payroll system works and are making assumptions. Particularly if it is outsourced. Because there is an online system, it sounds largely automated and exceptions may be only validated or prevented for over the expected number of hours.

In my work we have to log project work. The system prevents me from putting in extra hours but only flags missing hours in the reports in the following month.

Of course I'm making assumptions, as is everyone else in this thread.

You can be sure that the employer has protections in place on their side to prevent overpayment, so why not underpayment too?

I have to do the same (it's not specifically linked to Payroll), but there's a maximum and minimum limit for each week. Seems like an extremely basic function that would be included in any payroll software.

Dav010

Kevin Irving wrote: »

You're still diverting from the question. You know it shouldn't have happened, but are much more concerned with repeatedly staying how easy the process is, than with how fair the outcome is.

Delayed for a few days I would understand, even a week. A month is ridiculous. Only allowing approval on the last day of the month is also needlessly onerous.

Have you ever gone out of your way to help someone when they were stuck (like change a tyre, swap cash for coins at the bus stop, or help carry something), or do you just remind them how you wouldn't make that mistake and keep on walking?
.

The ops pay is being delayed a pay cycle, he/she will be paid on the next cycle, assuming of course that he/she confirms hours next time. If the pay cycle was weekly, or biweekly, then the delay would not be as long. Employers have set pay cycles which employees are obviously informed of, so it would come as no surprise that the next payroll calculation comes on the next payroll cycle.

This incessant need to know if I personally think it is fair or not, is now bordering on the creepy. It has no baring whatsoever on the discussion. You keep using these strange analogies which bare no reasonable resemblance to the op's situation. They really are not worth an answer.

slavetothegrind

The truth is here that a system is in place and there is no flexibility or forgiveness, yes the OP failed to tick that box.
OP you will get your money next defined paydate.

Next time the company needs an extra effort to achieve a goal in unforseen circumstances what will OP's attitude be?

According to procedure.....

kirving

Dav010 wrote: »

The ops pay is being delayed a pay cycle, he/she will be paid on the next cycle, assuming of course that he/she confirms hours next time. If the pay cycle was weekly, or biweekly, then the delay would not be as long. Employers have set pay cycles which employees are obviously informed of, so it would come as no surprise that the next payroll calculation comes on the next payroll cycle.

Yeah, we understand how it works. Employers also have plenty of payment runs in between set payroll cycles, so a bit of flexibility would mean it could be sorted in days - like any normal person would try to do after the found the OP was stuck.

Dav010 wrote: »

This incessant need to know if I personally think it is fair or not, is now bordering on the creepy. It has no baring whatsoever on the discussion. You keep using these strange analogies which bare no reasonable resemblance to the op's situation. They really are not worth an answer.

Fairly basic question on an anonymous internet forum. I just thought you might have your own opinion outside of the "personal responsibility" soapbox you're on, obviously not.

The logical conclusion to that black and white way of thinking would be to blindly agree with any lawful punishment to a crime, no matter how disproportionate it may seem to a reasonable person, and never to help others, as they should help themselves.