[ad_1]
A worker from India claimed he had to pay $25,000 to get a job at a truck repair company in Richmond, British Columbia, where he was short of wages and had received $115,574.69 from the B.C. Employment Standards Court.
The decision also calculated funds from AJ Boyal Truck Repair Co., Ltd. in Richmond, British Columbia, and was credited to mechanic Harminder Singh, including statutory holiday and vacation pay and accrued interest that he had never received.
In her 70-page determination, Shannon Corregan, the director of Employment Standards, detailed how Singh arrived in Canada on a visitor visa in March 2018, and then decided he wanted to stay in Canada.
Singer’s cousin contacted him with Sarvpreet Boyal, the sole director of AJ Boyal Truck Repair Co., Ltd. The company has provided job openings for mechanics and recently received a labour market impact assessment, which allows it to hire four temporary foreign workers as truck and transport mechanisms.
Singh signed an employment contract with Boyal and then returned to India for a month. After returning to Canada, he obtained a work permit at the border and began working at the company in July 2018. He left work in October 2019.
Singh claims he was asked to pay Boyal $25,000 to secure his job. He claimed that the $10,000 in the first period was paid in cash. The remaining $15,000 was offered through a check written by Singer’s cousin and was offered to a friend of Boyal.
The Employment Standards Act states that a person shall not directly or indirectly require, charge or collect or collect payments from persons seeking employment.
The judge said the employer was unreliable
Under Singh, Corregan found that Boyal and his lawyer, Pir indar Singh Sahota, were untrustworthy, in their submissions, describing their evidence and behaviors everywhere in the ruling, called “obstructive”, “unprofessional” and “inconsistent” and “inconsistent”.
“In the face of the negative effects of the claims, he changed the evidence of the evidence. Some of his claims are incredible. Some of his claims contradict AJ Boyal’s own literature evidence,” his decision said. “Some of his claims contradict AJ Boyal’s own literature evidence,” the decision said. “Some of his claims contradict AJ Boyal’s own literature evidence,” the decision said. “Some of his claims contradict AJ Boyal’s own literature evidence.”
“I found Mr. Bor was not a reliable witness. His testimony clashed with Mr. Singh’s testimony, and I prefer Mr. Singh’s testimony.”
Contradictory evidence of the number of days and hours Singh worked during the employment process was introduced during the litigation, with both parties accusing another forged record.
Corregan eventually supported Singh’s account after his attorney, Jonathon Braun, the legal director of the Center for Immigration Workers, found Boyal’s record to be suspicious.
Boyal claims that in the dispute was the spiral notebook or “register”, employees recorded and signed at daily time.
However, the experts concluded that Singh’s signature in the register was “not real” and that all entries were “written by one person rather than multiple people.”
CBC News reached out to Boyal for comment, but received no response by publication time.
When calculating the debt, Singh was granted only $15,000 out of $15,000 (the $25,000 he received the job).
Corregan said she could not include $10,000 in cash because the payment did not exceed the recovery period considered by the court.
The settlement is decomposed as follows:
- Wage – $24,032.13.
- Overtime – $44,256.24.
- Legal Holiday Salary – $2,505.76.
- Annual Holiday Salary – $4,585.38.
- Service Compensation Length – $2,300.42.
- Get employment fees – $15,000.
- Accrued Interest – $22,894.76
The mandatory administrative penalties for AJ Boyal truck repairs were also evaluated, totaling $4,000, respectively, eight separate violations of the Employment Standards Act.
Singh’s complaint was initially ruled by the 2023 Employment Standards Tribunal. At the time, the company was ordered to pay him a salary of $3,149.39 and an administrative penalty of $2,000.
However, Singh successfully appealed the decision in 2024 and was sent back to a second investigation.
[ad_2]
Source link
