Top Questions and Answers

Ask your question and an employment lawyer in Ontario, BC or Alberta will answer in minutes

FOR EMPLOYEES
FOR EMPLOYERS




Note, your name, city and email is not displayed on the website. It is used to notify you that we have answered your question.


I work as an employed sales person on straight commission. As an employee when we have meetings and company events they pay us an hourly rate of $20. My company books appointments for us and we go to the appointments. It has been a good system for the past ten years I have worked for them. In the past we would know our schedule a week out and even the day before so we could work out our schedule for the day. Example if I had a 10 am and a 1pm appointment I would be free from 3pm and on to have a personal life. Now the company could book us no appointments but expect us to be on call until 7:30 at night unpaid. We can’t schedule anything else as we have to be available. The catch is we don’t get paid any money to wait for an appointment. They could end up not booking anything and we have committed our time to the company. Is there any recourse or consequences with my refusing to being on call for free?
I’m employed as a straight commission sales person. I have been with the company for almost 11 years. My company recently has added Siro an AI sales improvement system that records and analyzes or in home sales calls. We do have to let the client know that we are recording the conversation and they can decline to have it record them. Many personal things are said during conversations that I don’t wish to have recorded. My question is can the company force its sales force to record in home conversations? They do not pay us during the conversation as I only earn money on the sale. What recourse do I have if I don’t agree to record the conversation with this AI company (Siro)?
Earlier this year, our compensation plan was changed so that 75% of our variable compensation was paid through Management by Objectives (MBOs) and 25% was tied to traditional quota-based commissions. Historically, MBO performance had been accelerated when employees exceeded target attainment, meaning that overachievement resulted in proportionally higher payouts. During compensation discussions, I received communications from management that led me to believe accelerators would continue to apply. Based on those discussions, as well as prior payout practices, I expected MBOs to remain accelerator eligible. More recently, I noticed that my compensation was being calculated without MBO accelerators. When I raised the issue, Compensation Operations explained that a decision had been made to discontinue MBO acceleration beginning in the second half of FY26 and continuing into FY27. Their position was that the compensation plan language supported that interpretation. After reviewing the plan documents myself, I found that while the plan described how MBO payouts would be calculated, I could not find any language that explicitly stated MBO accelerators had been removed or that MBOs were no longer eligible for accelerated payouts. The plan still referenced performance accelerators in other sections, which made the change unclear from my perspective. I raised that concern, not because I was challenging the company's right to make compensation changes, but because the documentation did not appear to clearly communicate a change that had a meaningful impact on earnings. Given the historical treatment of MBOs and the communications I had received from leadership, I felt the language left room for a different interpretation. Following that discussion, senior leadership clarified that the removal of MBO accelerators was intentional and had been approved through the company's compensation governance process. They also acknowledged the feedback regarding the wording of the plan and indicated they would review the language to determine whether it could be made more explicit in future versions. As a result, the commissions payout is significantly less that what was expected.
Waiving common law under termination clause: from new contract, not signed yet "The Employee acknowledges and agrees that they are not entitled to any common law notice of termination. It is the intention of the Employer and Employee to be bound by the minimum standards of the ESA. The Employee acknowledges and agrees that the entitlements in this section fully satisfy the Employer’s termination notice and severance obligations upon the termination of the Employee’s employment, and that no additional or further notice of termination, pay in lieu thereof and/or severance pay or benefits continuation shall be owed to the Employee (whether pursuant to the ESA, common law, contract or otherwise,) and the Employee specifically waives the right to common law reasonable notice of termination upon the Employer’s termination of employment. " Is this enforceable?
Using company van from home to first location and from last location to home, is the travel time payable? Hourly wages decreased by $3/hr, but added travel allowance of $24/day, travel time usually exceeds 1hr/day, is this legal?
Previous Next
Page 4 of 1630