Company operated without written employment agreement specifying hours of work or vacation entitlements
An Alberta employee has lost his vacation pay claim after a dispute over how he marked time off on his timesheets, according to a Jan. 22, 2026 decision by the Alberta Employment Standards Appeal Body.
Meryl McGonigle worked as a Main Shop Hand for Ocean Fluids from September 2018 until his employment ended on Nov. 8, 2024. After a complaint, an employment standards officer ordered the employer to pay him $3,887 in wages, $188 in overtime, $504 in general holiday pay, and $4,807 as pay in lieu of notice. No vacation pay was awarded.
McGonigle accepted all of those parts of the order and only appealed the conclusions on vacation pay and general holiday pay. However, chair Nancy Schlesinger dismissed his appeal for vacation pay and partially allowed his claim for general holiday pay.
The dispute centered on how McGonigle marked his timesheets. He wrote "off" or "booked off" for days he wanted away from work, believing these were personal days or weekends rather than vacation. The employer's payroll administrator viewed all such days as vacation time.
Conflicting evidence over time off
On vacation pay, the employment standards officer had found that, over the relevant two-year period, McGonigle would have been entitled to $7,962 in vacation pay if he had taken no vacation, but had actually received $8,451 for 33 vacation days. That produced an overpayment of $489 which the officer treated as a lawful deduction and used to reduce the total amount owing.
McGonigle’s position on appeal was that he had taken far less vacation: he said his only vacation during the two-year window was Aug. 14–21, 2023 and July 11–15, 2024, totalling nine days (excluding weekends). He argued other days marked “off” or “booked off” on his timesheets were really his “weekends” or rest days in a 24/7 operation, not vacation.
The company operated without a written employment agreement specifying hours of work or vacation entitlements. No written workplace policies existed for handling vacation requests. McGonigle's manager told him at hiring to simply book off the days he wanted.
In September 2022, the employer met with McGonigle to discuss attendance concerns. He received written notice that "going forward, all time off will be requested and approved in advance." The employer made clear it viewed his booked time as vacation. Despite this warning, McGonigle continued marking days as "booked off" in the same manner.
The appeal body found that after the September 2022 meeting, McGonigle knew the employer would treat any booked time as vacation. Chair Schlesinger ruled that the appellant's vacation "should be tracked in business days and not include weekends."
Employer record-keeping violations
However, the employer violated section 14(1)(c) of the Employment Standards Code by failing to maintain proper records. The appeal body noted the company "did not specify what vacation it viewed the Appellant as having taken on his paystubs" and "failed to do this in any clear or consistent way that would have come to the Appellant's attention."
For disputed days where McGonigle recorded hours worked but the payroll administrator claimed he was absent, the appeal body sided with the employee. The administrator did not supervise McGonigle's work directly, and the manager who did supervise him, Ed Clough, did not testify before the appeal body.
McGonigle claimed he was owed pay for working three holidays. The appeal body found he was entitled to general holiday pay for four hours worked on April 7, 2023. For the other two holidays, evidence showed he received time off in lieu, which the Code permits without requiring employee consent.
