Security guard claims he was promised full-time hours

A security guard in British Columbia had his claim for damages for negligent misrepresentation against his employer rejected by the B.C. Provincial Court.

Lloyd Sprague applied for a position as a security guard with Sensor Protection Group. He sent an e-mail stating he was interested in full-time employment. During his initial interview, he said he was offered full-time employment. But the company refuted that claim. Sensor did acknowledge that he expressed an interest in full-time work, but it told him he could obtain full time hours or more depending on his availability.

Sprague wanted a higher wage than was offered and did not want to work graveyard shifts. He met with the company’s president and negotiated a higher wage and signed a contract. The contract is silent about whether the position is full time and the nature of the postings, other than that they will include evenings and weekends.

In the first two-week period, Sprague worked 73 hours, close to full time. But in the next two weeks, he only worked 42 hours. He was offered graveyard shifts, but declined them. He was dismissed during his probationary period.

The court said it was of note that Sprague felt comfortable negotiating a different wage rate and requiring a written change to the contract terms. If he required full-time employment be guaranteed, or wished to be offered postings of a certain nature such as daytime or local positions, he could have insisted these terms also be written in to the contract. Sensor also pointed out that it wouldn’t be prudent for it to guarantee an employee be provided with full-time hours since assignment is dependent on the employee’s availability.

The court ruled against Sprague, but did offer the employer some advice: to include in its contract a term specifically addressing the limitation on its offer of employment that hours of work are dependent upon the employee’s availability and their acceptance of postings offered to them.

For more information see:

Sprague v. Sensor Protection Group Ltd., 2006 CarswellBC 2126 (B.C. Prov. Ct.).

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!