As specified by the doc, the advisors have been paid each a set annual base wage and variable compensation, together with bonuses and commissions, based mostly on their efficiency.
In response to the advisors who put the swimsuit ahead, their employer didn’t pay them trip and public vacation pay on high of the variable compensation they have been entitled to. The alleged actions breach employment requirements laws within the seven provinces the place they have been employed: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.
“The plaintiff alleges that the phrases of the Compensation Coverage violate the ESL, which requires that variable compensation be handled as wages for the needs of calculating the required trip and public vacation pay,” the courtroom submitting mentioned.
After consideration of other approaches to calculating pay – one utilized by the plaintiffs and the opposite by the defendants – the presiding choose licensed the category motion in opposition to RBC IA, although he modified a number of the proposed widespread points and proposed definition for the category.
“There’s some foundation in reality that RBC Common and RBC IA didn’t pay trip or public vacation pay as required below the ESL,” the doc mentioned.