The Alberta Labour Relations Board ruled that an engineer-in-training employed by Fitness Mechanics is not entitled to overtime pay under the Employment Standards Code (ESC) due to his professional status.
However, the board directed the employer to compensate him for training completed after his employment commenced on Oct. 25, 2022.
The engineer-in-training, Y.K., appealed a Feb. 12, 2024, Order of Officer that directed Fitness Mechanics to pay him $189.30 in wages, $7.50 in vacation pay, and a $100 Order of Officer fee. He sought to have the order varied to include additional claims for overtime pay, inclusion of bonuses in training compensation, and wages for training periods.
The board’s decision focused on three main grounds of appeal presented by Y.K.:
Overtime with the averaging agreement: Y.K. argued that the averaging agreements he signed were invalid due to lack of proper scheduling and that his actual work schedule did not align with the provided schedules. He contended that overtime should be calculated without considering these agreements.
Local and remote bonuses: He asserted that local and remote bonuses should be included in the calculation for training pay, as stipulated in his job offer letter.
Training compensation: Y.K. insisted he was eligible for payment for all training sessions, particularly those on Jan. 27, Feb. 26, and March 26, 2023. He argued that these trainings were verbally assigned and approved by supervisors, as evidenced by his timesheets.
The board’s ruling
The board, represented by Vice-Chair William J. Johnson, K.C., concluded that Y.K. was employed as an engineer-in-training and was acting in that capacity under the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act. As such, the ESC provisions regarding hours of work, overtime, and overtime pay do not apply to him.
Referring to the Employment Standards Regulation, the decision stated: “The Appellant is a member-in-training as per paragraph 2(2)(g) of the Employment Standards regulations. In addition, the terms of the employment agreement indicate that the Appellant was acting in the capacity as a member-in-training. Pursuant to paragraph 2(2)(g) of the ESC regulations the Appellant is not entitled to overtime for daily hours or weekly hours.”
The board dismissed Y.K.’s arguments challenging the validity of the averaging agreements, noting that whether the agreements were valid or not was irrelevant due to his exempt status.
Regarding the claim for training compensation prior to his employment start date, the board found that Y.K. was not entitled to wages for that period. “The Appellant was not an employee between October 19 and October 25, 2022, and he was not employed ‘to do work’. The training that the Appellant was participating in during this period was to obtain conditions precedents to his obtaining employment,” the decision stated.
Unpaid training
However, the board sided with Y.K. on the issue of unpaid training after his employment commenced. The training was necessary for site access to certain oil sands facilities and was assigned by the employer. “The Appellant is entitled to wages for his training time subsequent to October 25, 2022, for which he did not receive wages,” the board ruled.
The employer had argued that Y.K. was ineligible for training pay because he did not complete the training by a specified deadline. The board rejected this argument, noting: “There is no indication in the records or in the evidence that the Appellant was advised that it was necessary to complete the training before January 3, 2023. In addition, the training completed by the Appellant would have been added to his profile and would have made him eligible in the future to attend the particular oil sands site for which the training had been taken.”
The board directed the Employment Standards representative to calculate the wages owed to Y.K. for the training time and indicated that if necessary, the matter could be brought back for further determination or variation of the Order of Officer. It also noted that “payment for the local bonus and the remote bonus entitlements depends on where the Appellant took the training.”
For more information, see Kwon v Andrew Cooper Incorporated (Fitness Mechanics), 2024 ABESAB 19 (CanLII).
