Video Game tester wins case against Digital Extremes over unpaid overtime

16 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
#1
Top
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 5 2012 00:18
Video Game tester wins case against Digital Extremes over unpaid overtime

A friend of mine was a game tester at Digital Extremes (behind Unreal and the ports of Bioshock to consoles, based in London, ON) and actually did something about the unpaid overtime. Pursuing a legal route, which almost never ever is successful, he got the following ruling:

Quote:
The Ontario Ministry of Labour has made its ruling on my claim against Digital Extremes. They ruled that a QA tester is NOT an "IT Professional", and therefore the Employment Standards Act regulations DO apply to his/her working conditions. Therefore QA testers should be paid time-and-a half overtime for hours a week worked in excess of 44, and all the restrictions on working hours do apply (see ESA 2000). For example, you cannot be asked to work more than 8 hours a day, or 48 hours per week.

Digital Extremes accepted this outcome by voluntarily complying and paying me for the overtime they owed me. All other QA testers at this company should now be able to claim pay for all the overtime they work, and also require that the company abide by working hour restrictions as in the Act. I also believe that the "IT Professional" exemption should not be applied to artists and level designers, but this remains to be tested.

Now, it is the onus of game testers to claim overtime so companies could still continue their hyperexploitation.

#2
Top
LuciusTyronius
Offline
Joined: 5-01-12
Jan 5 2012 12:11

Do you have any evidence to back this claim? It seems silly to quote something yet not provide any sources.

-lt

#3
Top
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 5 2012 05:50

Erm, it comes straight from the guy who "won" the case. It was his Facebook status update. It's not been reported in the media (yet). He learnt of the decision just a few hours ago (by good ol' snail mail). I am even going to get a copy of the actual decision from The Ontario Ministry of Labour as soon as I see him in person.

Seems a bit silly for a completely new poster (registering today) just to comment on that. Makes me suspicious about what your motives are. And what gives with this Wikipedia mentality that only things that exists on the internet really exists? Weird.

#4
Top
Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 5 2012 09:16

Let me ask about Canadian law, I'm assuming this happened in Ontario, right? Does that carry precedent in all of Canada or just in that particular province?

#5
Top
Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 5 2012 09:19

Do you have more information on this distinction for 'IT Professionals' - is that a one-off exemption or are there are jobs too? And was there industry lobbying to get that in place?

#6
Top
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 5 2012 09:21

Great news, well done to your mate and thanks for posting this here

#7
Top
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 5 2012 09:24

Tbh I don't know. I am not Canadian and still get confused over the provincial and federal (?) law. I think, however, that since it was the Ontario Ministry of Labour that decided it's just for Ontario. So unlucky for those guys in Vancouver working for Electronic Arts. Still, you never know. It might set a precedent. But since the onus is on the tester to claim overtime they might not even "test" it for fear of losing their job. In this particular case, the tester was leaving (or had left already, I can't remember the details) so he wasn't scared of any repercussions.

#8
Top
LuciusTyronius
Offline
Joined: 5-01-12
Jan 5 2012 12:35

8 of my friends clicked the "Like" page for cake. Therefore, 4% of the population likes cake. Source: Facebook

#9
Top
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 5 2012 13:00
LuciusTyronius wrote:
8 of my friends clicked the "Like" page for cake. Therefore, 4% of the population likes cake. Source: Facebook

your posts are now starting to look like trolling. Trolling is not permitted by libcom's posting guidelines.

Clearly that is a false analogy, as he's not generalising about an entire population but talking about one case he has personal knowledge of. So the appropriate analogy would be "one of my friends clicked the like page for cake. Therefore one of my friends likes cake"

#10
Top
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 5 2012 18:33

LuciusTyronius registered the account yesterday. Has only posted twice, both on this thread. Why are you posting here Lucius. Is your surname Schmalz?

#11
Top
LuciusTyronius
Offline
Joined: 5-01-12
Jan 6 2012 01:30
Khawaga wrote:
LuciusTyronius registered the account yesterday. Has only posted twice, both on this thread. Why are you posting here Lucius. Is your surname Schmalz?

Look, I apologize for coming off as a jerk. I've just seen these posts pop up all over the place ever since the Team Bondi thing happened and I would rather see some sort of proof before I get too invested in it. As for my join date I have actually been lurking these forums for a few months now and I figured this was a topic worth commenting on.

#12
Top
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 6 2012 04:02

Ok, fair enough. It just seemed a bit odd. I will actually get a copy of the ruling from the person in question. He doesn't have an electronic copy; he got sent it in the regular snail mail. I will likely scan the document. When I have it I'll send you a PM and I can pass it on to you. Alternatively you can contact the Ontario Ministry of Labour. It's supposed to be public (I couldn't find it on their website, but then again all Canadian govt. website are horrible for that; it was a nightmare trying to find the correct info for my student visa).

Believe me it did happen. Are you a QT in Canada then? And I don't know anything about Team Bondi...

#13
Top
Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 6 2012 08:59

Team Bondi:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113540-Team-Bondi-Employees-Owed-Over-1-Million

#14
Top
Joryon
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Jan 14 2012 17:07

It is true! The guy who won the claim has shared the document online:

https://rapidshare.com/files/662709038/GW_vs_DE_2011.pdf

The decision should also appear on the Ontario Ministry of Labour website,
when they get around to posting it. But in the meantime, you can read about
the decision and verify it for yourself. Note that the employer accepted the
decision by voluntarily complying and paying the overtime they owed. They
have accepted the outcome.

This precedent should be applicable to all video game QA testers in Ontario! Guys,
tell the company they are legally obliged to pay you your overtime now!

#15
Top
medwards's picture
medwards
Offline
Joined: 9-01-09
Jan 25 2012 01:01

Now if only us developers weren't qualified as "IT Professionals" then we'd be getting somewhere...

#16
Top
underscore
Offline
Joined: 20-04-12
Apr 20 2012 16:22

For the information of people asking about whether this Ontario decision might apply to BC: no, not directly. A BC Employment Standards Tribunal could take note of the decision, but Ontario labour law has no application in BC, so the tribunal panel wouldn't be bound by it in any way (even as precedent). The tribunal could refer to it in their reasons for decision, but only as a sort of comment about the similarity of facts, for example.

In BC, the Employment Standards Act has a regulation that operates like the Ontario laws do (to exempt IT workers from labour protections). The text can be found here:

http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/igm/esr-part-7/esr-s37-8.htm

Note that the text of the regulation is binding, whereas the policy interpretation is not. The policy is just the way that the Employment Standards Branch (i.e. BC government) has decided to interpret the regulation. So, a tribunal might find the policy persuasive, but if the complainant made a more persuasive argument that their job wasn't covered by the definition, the tribunal could find in their favour.