Judge Rejects Proposed Class Action from Former Baker Tim Hortons
A Canadian judge has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit filed by a former baker against Tim Hortons. The plaintiff, who worked as a baker at the popular coffee and donut chain, alleged that the company had breached its employment contract by failing to pay him overtime and holiday pay. The plaintiff claimed that he worked an average of 55 hours per week, but was only paid for 40 hours. He also alleged that he was not paid overtime for working on weekends or holidays. Tim Hortons argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to overtime pay because he was a salaried employee. The judge agreed with Tim Hortons, ruling that the plaintiff’s employment contract did not entitle him to overtime pay. The judge also dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for holiday pay, finding that he had not worked the required number of hours to qualify for such pay. The plaintiff’s lawyer said that he was disappointed by the judge’s decision, but that he is considering appealing the ruling. He said that he believes that the plaintiff was entitled to overtime and holiday pay, and that the judge’s decision sends the wrong message to employers. Tim Hortons said that it is pleased with the judge’s decision, and that it believes that it has always complied with its legal obligations to its employees. The dismissal of this class action lawsuit is a setback for former employees of Tim Hortons who are seeking to recover unpaid overtime and holiday pay. However, it is important to note that this is just one case, and the outcome of future lawsuits may be different.Tim Hortons Class-Action Lawsuit Dismissed Over ‘No-Poach’ Clauses
Tim Hortons Class-Action Lawsuit Dismissed Over ‘No-Poach’ Clauses
A proposed class-action lawsuit against Tim Hortons alleging that “secret” agreements between the fast-food giant and its franchisees suppressed employee wages has been dismissed by a British Columbia Supreme Court judge.
Allegations of Harm to Employees
Former Tim Hortons employee Samir Latifi claimed that “no-poach” clauses in licensing agreements prevented Tim Hortons franchise owners from hiring or attempting to hire each other’s employees, causing economic harm to workers. He argued that the clauses prevented employees from moving to other stores within Canada’s largest fast-food chain, which has over 4,000 locations, for better wages or working conditions.
Judge’s Ruling
Justice Neena Sharma dismissed Latifi’s lawsuit, ruling that the clauses were intended to increase profits for the company and not necessarily harm workers. She found that expert evidence from Latifi’s side regarding the impact of “no-poaching” clauses did not sufficiently demonstrate that the company intended to harm its employees.
Company’s Response
Tim Hortons’ parent company, the TDL Group, stated that the fast-food chain stopped enforcing existing “no-poaching” clauses and stopped making them mandatory for new franchisees in September 2018. According to the company, complaints about the clauses were “extremely rare.”
Appeal Filed
Latifi’s lawyers have filed a notice to appeal the decision from May 21. TDL’s attorneys declined to comment for this article.
No-Poaching Clauses Now Illegal
As of June 2023, such agreements between unaffiliated employers, such as Tim Hortons franchisees, are illegal under Canada’s updated Competition Act. However, the change came too late for Latifi, as a significant portion of his claim was dismissed in 2021 due to the previous version of the law.
Limited Impact of Legal Change
Experts warn that the criminalization of “no-poaching” clauses may not significantly reduce their prevalence due to the high bar of criminal prosecution. However, the symbolic nature of the change may deter some employers from engaging in the practice.A judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit filed by a former Tim Hortons baker who alleged the company violated Ontario’s Employment Standards Act. The plaintiff, Jennifer Wasyliw, worked as a baker at a Tim Hortons location in Ottawa from 2008 to 2015. She claimed that she was not properly compensated for overtime hours, vacation pay, and public holiday pay. Wasyliw’s lawsuit sought to represent all Tim Hortons bakers in Ontario who had allegedly been underpaid. However, the judge ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action because the potential class members did not have a common interest. The judge found that there were significant variations in the experiences of Tim Hortons bakers, depending on the location of their store and the management team. As a result, the judge ruled that it would be impractical to manage the case as a class action. Wasyliw’s lawyer said that they were disappointed with the judge’s decision, but they respected it. They said that they would continue to pursue Wasyliw’s individual claims. Tim Hortons declined to comment on the lawsuit.
