As specified by the doc, the advisors had been paid each a hard and fast annual base wage and variable compensation, together with bonuses and commissions, primarily based on their efficiency.
Based on 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 had been entitled to. The alleged actions breach employment requirements laws within the seven provinces the place they had 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 court docket 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 towards RBC IA, although he modified among the proposed widespread points and proposed definition for the category.
“There may be some foundation in reality that RBC Common and RBC IA didn’t pay trip or public vacation pay as required beneath the ESL,” the doc mentioned.
