Pamela A. Chapman

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision refusing to issue an order for termination and severance pay.

The applicant was terminated from his position as a loss prevention investigator after he engaged in unwanted sexual touching of a younger female co-worker.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the complainant's evidence credible and concluded that the applicant's actions constituted serious sexual harassment.

The Board held that this behaviour amounted to wilful misconduct under section 57(10)(c) of the Employment Standards Act, disentitling the applicant to termination and severance pay.

The application for review was dismissed.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering it to pay termination pay to the employee.

Prior to the hearing, the employee advised the Board that she no longer wished to pursue her claim and that the money paid into trust should be returned.

As the employee abandoned her claim, the Board allowed the application, rescinded the Order to Pay, and ordered the wages and administrative fee held in trust to be returned to the employer.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision refusing her claim for unpaid wages on the basis that it was filed outside the six-month time limit under section 82.3(1) of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant argued that her claim should be permitted under the exception in section 82.3(2) because an officer had investigated other employees' claims against the same bankrupt employer.

The Board held that the exception requires the officer to have specific knowledge of the employee's identity and entitlement, which was not present here.

The application for review was dismissed.

Following a pre-hearing conference regarding an unfair labour practice complaint, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions.

The Crown advised it would participate without prejudice to its preliminary objection that it is not a proper responding party.

The Board reserved judgment on the objection until final argument.

The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the onus of proof, agreed facts, documents, and remedies sought, and directed the employer and trade union to advise if further bargaining days have been scheduled.

The applicant employers sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay vacation pay to approximately 60 employees following the acquisition of a bankrupt business.

At the hearing, the employer provided unchallenged evidence that it had already paid the required vacation pay to all former employees it continued to employ, and that other individuals on the order were never employed by the applicants or had breaks in service.

As the employer had fully complied with its obligations even if a sale of business had occurred, the Board rescinded the Order to Pay and directed the return of funds held in trust.

The applicant sought termination pay from the employer.

Following previous decisions, the parties agreed on the claimant's hourly rate of $11.50, resulting in an entitlement of $920.00 in lieu of two weeks' notice.

The applicant subsequently requested interest and compensation for time lost attending hearings.

The Board held it had no jurisdiction under the Employment Standards Act to award compensation for time lost and declined to award interest as it was not sought in the original claim or at the hearing.

The employer was ordered to pay $920.00.

Following a previous decision awarding termination pay to the claimant, the Board received correspondence from the claimant regarding the amount owed.

As the correspondence was not copied to the employer, the Board forwarded it and directed the employer to provide its submissions and any relevant pay records by a specified date.

The Board indicated it would subsequently issue a final decision on the quantum of termination pay and interest.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the $11,000 held in trust, with $8,000 to the employee, $2,000 returned to the employer, and the $1,000 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the Director in trust to disburse $2,330.92 to the employee and retain the $233.09 administration fee, with interest paid proportionately.

The matter was deemed terminated subject to the Ministry of Labour requesting a hearing within ten days.

The applicant filed an application under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties reached an agreement resolving the claim, and no funds were held by the Director.

The Board terminated the matter.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying her claim for termination pay.

The employer had terminated the applicant without notice after she acknowledged an intention to follow her former manager to a competing business.

The Board found that the applicant's tentative plans to work for a competitor did not amount to wilful misconduct or frustration of contract under section 57(10) of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was allowed in part, and the employer was ordered to pay two weeks' termination pay in lieu of notice.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order to pay under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board previously directed the Ministry of Labour to provide information regarding the investigation.

The Ministry provided the information, and the Board directed the applicant's counsel to review it, advise on the application of section 82.3(2) of the Act, and indicate whether a further oral hearing is sought.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay for unpaid wages and vacation pay, arguing that he had sold the company and should not be personally liable as a director.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for review, finding that the applicant failed to meet the onus of establishing that the wages and vacation pay were not payable by him, as he provided no oral evidence and the documentary evidence did not establish a legal foundation for his claim.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay for termination pay in lieu of notice, asserting that the claimant had quit or taken a leave of absence.

At the continuation of the hearing, the applicant failed to appear.

The Board held that the applicant bore the onus to establish that termination pay was not due.

In the absence of oral testimony to support the employer's documentary evidence, and given the claimant's prior testimony that she was terminated, the Board concluded the claimant was terminated without notice.

The application for review was dismissed and the monies held in trust were ordered to be distributed to the claimant.

The applicant employee sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for unpaid wages and termination pay.

The employer had unilaterally and retroactively changed the employee's remuneration from a base salary to straight commission.

The Board found that the employee was not a commissioned salesperson prior to being notified of the change, entitling him to unpaid wages for that period.

Furthermore, the unilateral change constituted a constructive dismissal which the employee did not condone, entitling him to termination pay.

The application was allowed.

During proceedings for a first contract arbitration and a termination of bargaining rights, the responding employer and objecting employees raised a constitutional objection, arguing that the employer's taxi dispatch service fell under federal jurisdiction due to its cross-border travel into Detroit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the constitutional facts, noting that cross-border trips represented less than 0.5% of the employer's total volume and were unscheduled and on-demand.

Applying the test of whether the extra-provincial work was 'regular and continuous', the Board concluded that the extra-provincial travel was occasional and casual.

Therefore, the employer's labour relations fall within provincial jurisdiction, and the Board has jurisdiction to hear the applications.