Remote workers may want to think twice about spending company time to do things like stream TV shows or play video games, as a Canadian accountant was
The accountant, Karlee Besse, was hired as a remote worker in September 2021. Around February 2022, Besse started having weekly meetings with her manager, initiated by her, because she was feeling unproductive and not performing as well as she could have. Her employer, Reach CPA, installed a time-tracking program called TimeCamp on her work laptop, presumably in response.
In March, Besse — due to having several files that were over-budget and behind schedule — was put on a performance improvement plan. It was while meeting on this matter that her supervisor expressed concerns about a timesheet entry she'd made for a file she had not actually worked on. Further data from the time-tracking program found that, between February and March 25, Besse had about 50.76 hours unaccounted for that she had nonetheless reported on her timesheets. She was later fired.
Besse then sued her firm for wrongful termination, saying she was entitled to $1,371.60 for unpaid wages and $4,166.67 for one month's severance pay in lieu of notice, for a total of $5,538.27. However, she limited her claim to $5,000, which is the small-claims monetary limit for the Civil Resolution Tribunal in Canada. The firm said it did not owe the money because she was not actually working at this time. It said she owed them money because they had given her an advance to pay for new office equipment when she was hired. At the time when Besse's employment was terminated, the firm said she owed $2,903 as the unforgiven part of an advance that Reach made when she began working. After deducting $1,806.27 from her final paycheck, Reach said Besse still owed $1,096.73 for the advance. Reach's claims totaled $2,603.07.
During the case, the firm said the software's tracking data did not match what Besse put on her timesheet. She said this was because she did not fully understand how to use TimeCamp, and that instead, she chose to work with hard copies of client documents, which would not have been tracked by the software. She said she did not tell the firm she was working in hard copy because she "knew they wouldn't want to hear that" and she was afraid. However, the firm said if this were true, the data would have shown her printing a large volume of documents, but there was no such activity logged. Further, the firm noted that even if she had worked primarily in hard copy, she would have needed to enter the information into the software eventually, which she did not.
Given all this, the judge ruled that Besse did engage in time theft, and therefore was not wrongfully terminated. As a result, the court said the firm is entitled to $1,096.73, since after withholding her final paycheck that amount was still outstanding under the advance agreement, on top of the $1,506.34 the firm said it was owed due to the time theft.
