5 ms·

> The dispute began last year when Besse claimed she was fired without "just cause." Not entirely clear, but it sounds like she sued first, and then they dug i

> The dispute began last year when Besse claimed she was fired without "just cause." Not entirely clear, but it sounds like she sued first, and then they dug into the time accounting more precisely, and calculated the exact discrepancy. Would have been better to walk away.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
So to be clear: 1. She got fired by company, company did not sue her for stealing time. 2. She tried to sue the company that fired her. It failed. She was ordered to repay $2k in court fees or because of the stolen time? > Now, a civil tribunal, which is part of Canada's judicial system, has ruled that Besse owes her former company $2,756 after the software installed on her laptop revealed she misrepresented over 50 hours at work. Ah... did she bill by the hour or something? Not salary?
- ygjb 4y ago
  It's a small accounting firm in a city with around 25,000 people. Given the time frame (March 2022) for the termination and dispute, it's likely the employee was a contract employee hired on the basis of billable hours to assist with extra workload during tax season.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
msrenee 4y ago
Have you seen a more detailed article on this? I feel like a lot of details are missing here. Most important to my mind is the time period this occured in. Are we talking 50 hours in 2 weeks or over the course of a year? One seems like a reasonable reason for dismissal and the other seems like nickel-and-diming a low-level employee.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  It's not "nickel and diming", it's "if you sue mean, you better not also be stealing from me"
  - msrenee 4y ago
    With the additional information, that appears to be the case. From the article, though, that wasn't clear to me at all. They left out a ton of details.
- sixothree 4y ago
  If employers are going to start suing employees for "stealing" an hour a week over the course of a year then this is going to be a very ugly world we live in.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    But that is not what happened if you read the article, or the case linked by the article. She was fired. She sued the company, claiming unfair dismissal. The company managed to prove that she was fired for a cause and the civil resolution tribunal deemed she owed her employer that much.
    - sixothree 4y ago
      Did I say that's what the article is suggesting? Maybe you need a lesson in reading comprehension.
  - msrenee 4y ago
    I've since read the case summary that's been linked and I've lost all my sympathy for her. The excess hours were over the course of 6 weeks or so and she also owed the company an additional $1100 on an advance to pay for her CPA courses. The advance was set to be forgiven at the rate of 1/24th of the total per month, which I interpreted as a sort of "we'll pay for your training and certification if you stay with us for 2 years" agreement. From the information I've seen, it didn't seem like they intended to pursue her for the rest of the advance until she brought the suit against them for dismissal and withholding her last paycheck to repay a portion of the advance.
    - sixothree 4y ago
      I'm not sure why you are bringing her up at all. I was not making a comment about her case in any way.
  - olliej 4y ago
    Way to show you didn't read the article. Her employer did not sue her. Her employer fired her for underperforming and falsifying her time sheets. She sued her employer saying that that was not a valid cause. The court said that it clearly was and that she now had to pay back some of the costs. She would have gotten away with falsifying her timesheets if she hadn't decided to sue them. Also: The monitoring software was not installed until after she had been underperforming and presumably had suspicious billing, and it was installed with her permission.
- krisoft 4y ago
  The article links the actual case file: https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/523029/index.do https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5230... > Most important to my mind is the time period this occured in. “Karlee Besse, was employed as an accountant by the respondent and applicant by counterclaim, Reach CPA Inc. (Reach), from October 12, 2021 to March 29, 2022” > One seems like a reasonable reason for dismissal and the other seems like nickel-and-diming a low-level employee. It is important to note that the company didn’t start nickel-and-diming her. She was underperforming. They suspected the hours she was reporting thus they installed the time tracking software. She kept underpeforming and they let her go. She sued the company. If she just have left she would not have had to pay them anything. Based on the article.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago

So to be clear: 1. She got fired by company, company did not sue her for stealing time. 2. She tried to sue the company that fired her. It failed. She was ordered to repay $2k in court fees or because of the stolen time? > Now, a civil tribunal, which is part of Canada's judicial system, has ruled that Besse owes her former company $2,756 after the software installed on her laptop revealed she misrepresented over 50 hours at work. Ah... did she bill by the hour or something? Not salary?

ygjb 4y ago
It's a small accounting firm in a city with around 25,000 people. Given the time frame (March 2022) for the termination and dispute, it's likely the employee was a contract employee hired on the basis of billable hours to assist with extra workload during tax season.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

msrenee 4y ago

Have you seen a more detailed article on this? I feel like a lot of details are missing here. Most important to my mind is the time period this occured in. Are we talking 50 hours in 2 weeks or over the course of a year? One seems like a reasonable reason for dismissal and the other seems like nickel-and-diming a low-level employee.

hgsgm 4y ago
It's not "nickel and diming", it's "if you sue mean, you better not also be stealing from me"
- msrenee 4y ago
  With the additional information, that appears to be the case. From the article, though, that wasn't clear to me at all. They left out a ton of details.
sixothree 4y ago
If employers are going to start suing employees for "stealing" an hour a week over the course of a year then this is going to be a very ugly world we live in.
- krisoft 4y ago
  But that is not what happened if you read the article, or the case linked by the article. She was fired. She sued the company, claiming unfair dismissal. The company managed to prove that she was fired for a cause and the civil resolution tribunal deemed she owed her employer that much.
  - sixothree 4y ago
    Did I say that's what the article is suggesting? Maybe you need a lesson in reading comprehension.
- msrenee 4y ago
  I've since read the case summary that's been linked and I've lost all my sympathy for her. The excess hours were over the course of 6 weeks or so and she also owed the company an additional $1100 on an advance to pay for her CPA courses. The advance was set to be forgiven at the rate of 1/24th of the total per month, which I interpreted as a sort of "we'll pay for your training and certification if you stay with us for 2 years" agreement. From the information I've seen, it didn't seem like they intended to pursue her for the rest of the advance until she brought the suit against them for dismissal and withholding her last paycheck to repay a portion of the advance.
  - sixothree 4y ago
    I'm not sure why you are bringing her up at all. I was not making a comment about her case in any way.
- olliej 4y ago
  Way to show you didn't read the article. Her employer did not sue her. Her employer fired her for underperforming and falsifying her time sheets. She sued her employer saying that that was not a valid cause. The court said that it clearly was and that she now had to pay back some of the costs. She would have gotten away with falsifying her timesheets if she hadn't decided to sue them. Also: The monitoring software was not installed until after she had been underperforming and presumably had suspicious billing, and it was installed with her permission.
krisoft 4y ago
The article links the actual case file: https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/523029/index.do https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/item/5230... > Most important to my mind is the time period this occured in. “Karlee Besse, was employed as an accountant by the respondent and applicant by counterclaim, Reach CPA Inc. (Reach), from October 12, 2021 to March 29, 2022” > One seems like a reasonable reason for dismissal and the other seems like nickel-and-diming a low-level employee. It is important to note that the company didn’t start nickel-and-diming her. She was underperforming. They suspected the hours she was reporting thus they installed the time tracking software. She kept underpeforming and they let her go. She sued the company. If she just have left she would not have had to pay them anything. Based on the article.