A Canadian woman was ordered to repay her employer for “time theft” after computer software tracked her lack of work performance.
RELATED STORIES:Â Slutty Vegan Founder Pinky Cole Pulled From “TODAY” Show After Employee Sues Her For Alleged Unpaid Wages & Withheld Tips
Karlee Besse worked as a remote accountant for Reach CPA in British Columbia, and she initially sued for $5,000 in unpaid wages, claiming wrongful termination. Besse, on the other hand, now has to pay $2,498.89 in returned wages after the court ruled in favor of her former employer.
After discovering that her work was over budget and behind schedule, the company used the software TimeCamp on Besse’s computer to track her work performance. According to Fortune, the software monitors an employee’s productivity, how much time they spend on a particular document, and how it is used. According to their findings, Reach CPA determined that Besse wasted 50 hours on “non-work” related tasks on company time and that the timing on her timesheets and software usage logs was incorrect.
RELATED STORIES:Â Lawyer Denied Entry From Radio City Music Hall Because Of Her Employer
Besse explained in court that she printed out hard copies of her work and claimed the software didn’t take that into account. Additionally, she didn’t disclose it to her employer because she assumed they wouldn’t want to hear her explanation. But Reach CPA stated the software was linked to the printer and monitored its activity, meaning the data from her work would’ve been collected which didn’t happen.
“Even if I accept Miss Besse was working in hard copy most of the time, there is no evidence she uploaded her work onto Reach’s electronic system, or otherwise demonstrated to Reach that she spent any significant amount of time performing work-related tasks in connection with the 50.76 unaccounted hours. So, I accept Reach’s explanation that Miss Besse’s printing volume did not add up and that she did not upload work she did in hard copy.”
Besse told her boss that she “plugged time into files that I didn’t touch and that wasn’t right or appropriate in any way or fashion, and I recognize that and so for that, I’m really sorry. She also made an agreement that contradicted her claims of unpaid wages.
“I find the advance agreement was not a new agreement but rather a contractual amendment to the September 2021 employment agreement. This is because the video evidence of Miss Besse’s interview with Reach shows the parties talking about if and how Reach would pay for the CPA Professional Education Program fees. So, I find the parties made the advance agreement to give effect to those interview discussions after Miss Besse confirmed the program fees. The courts have held that fresh consideration (something of value given by each party) is not required to enforce a contractual amendment (see Rosas v. Toca, 2018 BCCA 191). So, I find the advance agreement bound the parties, and Reach was entitled to withhold the entire amount of Miss Besse’s final paycheck to cover part of the unforgiven $2,903.”