'People are taking a serious look at how they're compensated, reevaluating what they consider to be fair': Experts weigh in on risks of unpaid work
The ongoing Air Canada flight attendants’ strike – and now, defiance of a return to work order for 10,000 flight attendants – is spotlighting the issue of unpaid labour before and after shifts.
Many duties performed by flight attendants before boarding and after deplaning, such as safety checks and assisting passengers, are unpaid under the current pay structure, according to the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).
The union has pushed for ground work to be paid at 100 per cent of a flight attendant’s hourly rate, while Air Canada’s proposal offers ground pay at 50 per cent, alongside an eight-per-cent wage increase in the first year and further increases based on a new ground pay formula .
Industry practice and changing expectations
But the practice of leaving certain portions of work unpaid is not unique to airlines, according to Adam King, assistant professor of labour studies at the University of Manitoba.
“Over many years, this has emerged as a pressing issue for flight attendants that they want to see addressed, and so it's come to a head in this round of bargaining,” he says.
“But I think it should give employers pause to consider what aspects of their the organization, of their labour process, might become thorny or issues for workers going forward.”
He also connects the issue to the post-pandemic economy, stating that the rise in worker awareness of work-life balance created by the pandemic, plus more recently the increasingly tight budgets experienced by many, has made employees more critical of their own work situations.
“This is another example of people genuinely thinking more critically about their work and its compensation, and living through this cost of living crisis, and it's only compounding these issues,” says King.
“People are taking a serious look at their jobs and how they're compensated, reevaluating what they consider to be fair … I think in this case, particularly flight attendants, are saying that performing large parts of their job without compensation is no longer tolerable.”
Legal requirements before, after shifts
Employment lawyer Nadia Zaman of Rudner Law in Toronto emphasizes the importance for employers to have clear, written policies regarding compensation for time spent prepping, commuting, and waiting on site.
Ambiguity around these areas, she notes, can lead to legal risks such as constructive dismissal and even discrimination claims if employees think they aren’t being compensated fairly. Discrimination is a risk in cases where compensation structures appear to be gendered, Zaman explains, as in the example of the Air Canada flight attendants.
“Unless it's explicitly in writing and implemented consistently across the board, it is going to be difficult for an employer to try and rely on unwritten policies and practices,” she explains.
“If employers have proper written policies and practices in place, they're able to better manage the workplace, maximize their rights and flexibility and minimize potential liability to employees in the short and long run.”
Employers should be keeping up-to-date with industry standards, she adds, and adjusting policies and practices accordingly: “Look at perhaps what their competitors are doing, and potentially consider pilot programs or phased implementation to monitor costs and outcomes … there should be proactive negotiation to avoid situations like these, and an attempt to come to a resolution, because the reputational damage and the financial losses are quite high.”
Gender, fairness and compensation changes
King adds that the strike action and negotiations point to a years-long issue that is only now coming to light: “This industry practice of having flight attendants performing large portions of their work unpaid is really related to the fact that this has always been a job that was done primarily by women and was undervalued and compensated unfairly. And so that's really just playing itself out now.”
He adds that differentiating between hourly and salaried employees is also crucial for employers, as salaried employees’ time is less tied to wage and therefore more easily overlooked when considering underpayment.
“It's really a matter of dialogue with your employees, to ensure … they're not working excessive hours beyond what would be considered standard, and above and beyond really what their salary compensation entails,” says King.
“Things are a little trickier when it comes to salaried employees, but the key, to me, really is is dialogue with your employees to ensure that that things are fair and that they feel that their compensation reflects their effort and input.”
Zaman adds that transparency also applies when changing or adding policies, especially considering competitive labour markets as well as reputational concerns.
“I think a certain level of transparency can be helpful in terms of boosting morale and employee retention. There is going to be competition in the market,” she says.
“If employers are considering implementing certain measures to boost morale and boost employee retention, then it is something that they could consider.”
Legal risks and best practices
Zaman warns that legal risks can arise if employees demand pay for travel or ground time and employers are unprepared. Both parties can make assumptions about what is legal, she says, meaning employers should ensure that any ambiguity is addressed pre-emptively.
“An employer will overestimate their obligations,” she says, “and at times, an employee will overestimate what their rights are.”
While provincial regulations vary, there is a general understanding that employees aren’t automatically owed compensation for time before or after work shifts – unless it is related to work.
She adds that in provinces like Ontario, B.C., and Alberta, “In situations where an employee is required to travel between job sites at the employer's direction, that would be considered working time or part of the work day.
“Generally speaking, there isn't that requirement unless there's a contract or policy providing for a greater right or benefit, or the employer has a practice in place providing for a greater right or benefit.”
