Worker claimed boss promised big bonus, but amount didn’t follow compensation plan, policies
The Ontario Labour Relations Board has rejected a worker’s claim that her employer promised her a $41,000 bonus that didn’t follow bonus and commission calculations in the employment agreement.
The worker was a rental sales representative for cleaning and safety supply company Cintas Canada in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., hired in March 2022.
A few weeks before the working started working, Cintas provided a letter outlining the terms of her employment, which the worker signed. The terms set out her compensation as including a base salary, monthly commissions, and quarterly bonuses based on performance. There was no formula for calculating the bonuses.
The worker also signed an employment agreement that required her to comply with all company policies, rules, and regulations, “both written and oral” as announced by Cintas over the course of the worker’s employment. The agreement referred to policy manuals but did not contain a specific reference to a bonus or commissions.
Compensation plan
On the worker’s first day of work, Cintas gave her two additional documents – a “sales commissions for rental sales representatives” document and another for “uniform sales representative/hybrid sales compensation plan” for the fiscal year. The commissions document described how her sales commissions would be calculated, while the compensation plan document outlined how her commissions and the quarterly bonus would be calculated.
The worker performed well and was promoted to rental sales manager in June.
According to the worker, she met with her boss in October and was promised a $41,000 bonus. Her boss told her that she would be sending a “policy/procedure exception request” to senior managers in order to provide the worker with an exceptional entitlement to the larger-than-normal bonus.
However, according to her boss, the exception request was created after an internal audit found that Cintas had mistakenly paid out a $23,000 commission to the worker the previous month. A clause in the employment agreement stipulated that commissions from installed business would be moved to a “house” account after a worker was promoted to sales manager. In this case, the worker’s boss created the exception request to obtain approval for the worker to retain the $23,000 commission because of extensive work she did on the sales account.
Unpaid wages claim
Senior management agreed to the exception request. However, the worker claimed that her boss had promised a $41,000 bonus for generating increased sales to an account with Algoma Steel. When she didn’t receive that amount, she resigned from her employment in November 2022 and filed an employment standards complaint for unpaid wages.
An employment standards officer determined that, under the terms and conditions of the worker’s bonus plan, she had no entitlement to a $41,000 bonus. The worker’s complaint was dismissed.
The worker applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a review of the decision.
The board reviewed the exception request and noted that, on its face, it related to the payment of a commission to the worker, not a bonus. This made the boss’ explanation more credible, particularly since it was the boss who prepared the document and would know what it covered, said the board.
The board also found that the worker’s calculation of a $41,000 bonus did not relate to the formula for determining bonuses set out in the commission and compensation plan documents. These documents applied to the employment agreement because the agreements that the worker signed required her to comply with all policies announced by Cintas, so the worker essentially had already agreed to abide by them, the board said.
Insufficient evidence
The crux of the worker’s argument was that her boss promised her a $41,000 bonus in a conversation, but the worker didn’t provide any evidence showing that her boss – who was in a middle management position – had the authority to make such a promise, the board said. In addition, there was no evidence as to why the worker would be entitled to such an amount – if that amount was added to the $23,000 commission that was approved, the worker would have received a total amount that was higher than her annual salary in only six months, the board said.
“In the circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the employer would have agreed to such a bonus plus commission payments,” said the board.
The board also found that the company policy putting commissions into the “house” account after someone is promoted to sales manager – incorporated into the employment agreement – made it unlikely that Cintas would have agreed to a bonus for the worker generating increased sales with Algoma Steel, as there was no bonus due under the policy.
The board determined that there was no binding promise or assurance of a $41,000 bonus for the worker and, due to the “house” account clause in the employment agreement, the worker wasn’t entitled to a bonus at all.
The worker’s application for review was dismissed. See Filioglou v. Cintas Canada Ltd., 2023 CarswellOnt 13188.
