Pay considered below the minimum wage and overtime paid at incorrect rates: the CNESST scolds BRP for the treatment of some of its employees who came from Mexico to lend a hand to Valcourt. The multinational accepts part of the blame, but is surprised by the decision of the organization, with which it is discussing to correct the situation. Large sums are at stake.
Following an investigation, the Commission for Standards, Equity, Health and Safety at Work (CNESST) sent 76 notices of violation to the Quebec manufacturer of snowmobiles and other recreational vehicles for non-compliance with four articles of the Labor Standards Act. The violations allegedly occurred between December 2021 and November 2022 and concern 25 employees.
Each time, the organization judges the “offense” to be “objectively serious” and suggests a minimum penalty beyond the minimum threshold of $600. The Quebec company – which earned profits of 2.5 billion last year – has not yet decided whether it will plead guilty to all of the findings. The CNESST is demanding $127,000 from him. The allegations have not yet passed the test of the courts.
“We were surprised by these findings,” said Patrick Dussault, vice-president of global manufacturing operations at BRP, in an interview. Discussions with the Commission have been going on for about 10 months and are continuing. »
Last February, a Radio-Canada report lifted the veil on the salary treatment of Mexican employees of the manufacturer of Ski-Doo, Sea-Doo and Can-Am who came to work in Quebec. They were part of a program that allowed 200 employees from factories in Querétaro and Juárez to come temporarily to earn a living in Valcourt, where positions were vacant due to difficulties recruiting workers.
The experience was accompanied by conditions, namely the imposition of support fees to pay for expenses such as accommodation, meals, transportation and “entertainment” activities during the stay in Estrie. For a 40-hour week, BRP withheld an average of $560 per week (taxes and expense charges) from gross pay of $920. The residual net salary was deposited in the employee’s account in Mexico.
BRP is criticized by the CNESST for this practice and also for having violated the article by failing to increase the hourly rate by 50% for overtime worked by its foreign workers concerned by the investigation by the organization responsible for application of labor laws in Quebec. Result: they were deprived of around 1 million. Payments will be made soon, assures Mr. Dussault.
“We recognized errors, that’s part of the findings,” he said. We made this mistake and we apologize to all employees affected by this. »
However, the CNESST and the recreational vehicle manufacturer are not on the same wavelength when it comes to addressing the issue of the minimum wage.
Taking into account the deductions made from the pay of BRP’s Mexican nationals, their hourly rate plunges below $10 per hour. This is lower than the base wage of $23 per hour offered to assembly line workers in Valcourt and the minimum wage, which has been $15.25 per hour since last May.
If the Commission considers that the multinational’s program for its foreign employees violates section 40 of the law, Mr. Dussault replies that it is a “pay net of living expenses”.
“What a Mexican employee is left with when he comes to work in Quebec is the equivalent, in principle, of what an average Quebec worker could be left with,” he argues, asserting that employees Quebecers in Valcourt must pay their own bills (housing, mortgage, other living expenses, etc.).
On this aspect, BRP is discussing with the CNESST in order to take stock of the filing of a possible notice of claim regarding unpaid sums. It was not possible to get an idea of the amount that could be paid or claimed. Discussions also concern the guidelines to be put in place in the event that another contingent of employees from Mexico comes to assemble snowmobiles in Quebec.
Section 49 of the Act respecting labor standards allows an employer to make salary deductions in excess of those provided for in the current framework if the worker consents in writing. This was the case at BRP. There are limits, however, according to Article 41, which specifies that the employee must receive “at least the minimum wage.”
Lawyer and professor of labor law at the School of Industrial Relations at the University of Montreal, Dalia Gesualdi-Fecteau did not comment specifically on the BRP case, since the file is still ongoing. The expert, however, summarizes the spirit of article 41 of the law.
“Just because an employer offers a turkey or a basket of groceries does not mean that it can be considered part of the minimum wage,” explains Ms. Gesualdi-Fecteau. We cannot say that any other non-pecuniary good is included in the calculation of the minimum wage. »
The CNESST did not want to comment on BRP’s alleged infractions “taking into account the legal process” in progress.
As for the multinational’s other alleged violations, they concern the failure to provide pay slips and the keeping of a worker register.
