6 ms·

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. A

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.
  - sixothree 4y ago
    Honestly, you demonstrated poor reading comprehension here. >Her employer did not sue her. Did I suggest otherwise? >Her employer fired her for underperforming and falsifying her time sheets. Did I suggest otherwise? >She sued her employer saying that that was not a valid cause. Did I suggest otherwise? >The court said that it clearly was and that she now had to pay back some of the costs. Did I suggest otherwise? >She would have gotten away with falsifying her timesheets if she hadn't decided to sue them. Did I suggest otherwise?
- refurb 4y ago
  I think the lesson here is “dont sue your employer if you’re not working the hours you claimed”
  - sixothree 4y ago
    What does this woman have to do with my comment?
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.

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.
- sixothree 4y ago
  Honestly, you demonstrated poor reading comprehension here. >Her employer did not sue her. Did I suggest otherwise? >Her employer fired her for underperforming and falsifying her time sheets. Did I suggest otherwise? >She sued her employer saying that that was not a valid cause. Did I suggest otherwise? >The court said that it clearly was and that she now had to pay back some of the costs. Did I suggest otherwise? >She would have gotten away with falsifying her timesheets if she hadn't decided to sue them. Did I suggest otherwise?
refurb 4y ago
I think the lesson here is “dont sue your employer if you’re not working the hours you claimed”
- sixothree 4y ago
  What does this woman have to do with my comment?

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.