A British Columbia-based trucking company that alleged a former worker was guilty of time theft — amounting to an overpayment of more than $4,200 — has lost its bid to recoup the money.
Sandhar Trucking Ltd. said the former employee, GS, overstated his working time by 153.5 hours between January and November 2022, resulting in what it described as an overpayment of $4,205.43.
Sandhar, a container trucking company, initiated the claim after the worker’s resignation, leading to a review of his daily timesheets since the start of his employment.
GS denied the allegations, asserting that his timesheets, which were submitted daily and approved by Sandhar before payment, were accurate. He suggested that the claim was retaliatory, stemming from an overtime wage complaint he had filed with the Employment Standards Branch (ESB).
Dispute heard via written submissions
The Civil Resolution Tribunal opted to hear the dispute through written submissions, given the nature of the arguments which largely focused on the credibility of each party’s evidence.
During the proceedings, Sandhar was required to prove its claims on a balance of probabilities. However, the tribunal found that Sandhar failed to conclusively establish that GS had overstated his hours or that it had overpaid him.
Notably, discrepancies in Sandhar’s calculations and the lack of clear evidence to refute the daily timesheet submissions played a crucial role in the tribunal’s decision. The tribunal highlighted that employers have a rebuttable presumption that employees earn the wages paid to them, especially when daily timesheets are submitted and approved by the employer, as was the case here.
Definition of ‘time theft’
Furthermore, the decision touched upon the concept of “time theft,” a term not extensively defined in statutory or common law, which generally refers to employees accepting wages for hours not worked.
The tribunal observed that while time theft could range from trivial to egregious, the evidence provided by Sandhar, particularly in comparison with the worker’s timesheets and the absence of a policy requiring strict adherence to the Samsara GPS tracking system’s data, was insufficient to prove the allegations.
Sandhar relied on the GPS data to verify when GS started and finished his shifts, matching it up to his timesheets. But that data only records when a vehicle is turned on and off.
“Sandhar implicitly acknowledges that a driver’s shift does not start when the driver starts the engine, and it does not finish when the driver turns off the engine,” the Tribunal said. “The driver must report to the yard, receive and review their delivery assignments, plan their route and conduct a pre-trip inspection.”
The employer’s claims were dismissed.
For more information, see Sandhar Trucking Ltd. v. Sandhu, 2024 BCCRT 227 (CanLII).
