Pamela Chapman

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering it to pay $1,168.00 in vacation pay to a former employee.

The employer argued that the employee had taken paid time off that should be characterized as vacation, including a period over Christmas where the employee was on-call for snow removal.

The Board found that because the employee was required to be available for work during the Christmas period, it could not be considered vacation.

The Board upheld the Officer's order, noting the lack of clear agreements or records regarding vacation time.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering it to pay $248.80 in vacation pay to the responding employee.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the employer nor the employee attended.

The Ministry of Labour appeared.

As the employer brought forward no evidence to establish a basis for setting aside the Order to Pay, the Board dismissed the application and upheld the Order to Pay, directing the release of funds held in trust to the employee.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed according to the settlement, with $10,000 paid to the employee, $11,648.90 returned to the employer, and $1,030.90 retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The matter was terminated.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay unpaid wages, vacation pay, and reimbursement for unauthorized deductions to a former employee.

The dispute centered on the calculation of wages under a commission-based compensation system paid one month in arrears.

The Board recalculated the amounts owed by deducting an advance paid in the first month of the commission arrangement from the final commissions earned.

The Board allowed the application in part, amending the order to pay to reflect the recalculated amount of $2,678.70 owed to the employee.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay for unpaid wages, termination pay, and vacation pay.

The employer failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

As the party seeking to establish that the amounts were not due, the employer bore the onus of proof.

Due to its failure to attend and call evidence, the application for review was dismissed and the Order to Pay was upheld.

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

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $449.28 paid to the employee and $249.39 returned to the employer.

The matter was terminated pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant sought to withdraw its application against the responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsidered its decision dated April 7, 1999, and amended paragraph 74(d) to order the employer to continue its practice regarding jump calls as it existed prior to the certification application, enforcing rules without discrimination based on the city of licensing.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its applications against Maxi, Provigo Distribution Inc., and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether the Ottawa-Carleton Association for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (OCAPDD) is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

OCAPDD provides residential group homes, day programs, and support services to persons with developmental disabilities.

The Board found that the residential programs and several day programs provide significant observation, care, and treatment to medically fragile and high-need clients.

Given the protective purpose of the HLDAA and the integrated nature of the agency's services, the Board advised the Minister that OCAPDD as a whole is a hospital under the Act.

Following a Divisional Court decision quashing paragraph (d) of the Board's previous order and remitting it for reconsideration, the Board directed the parties to file submissions.

The Board specifically invited comments on the Court's suggested amendment regarding the employer's practice with respect to taking jump calls.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision regarding her claim for unpaid wages.

The Board directed the Ministry of Labour to provide particulars concerning other employee claims against the same employer to determine the applicability of section 82.3(2) of the Employment Standards Act.

The matter was adjourned pending receipt of this information.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union requested the termination of the proceedings via correspondence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and terminated the proceedings.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision that ordered it to pay $936.00 in termination pay to the employee.

During the hearing, the matter was adjourned due to the personal circumstances of a representative.

The Board issued directions requiring the employer to provide a detailed statement of material facts and the basis for its claim, and directed a Labour Relations Officer to attempt settlement before scheduling a continuation of the hearing.

The applicant filed an application against the responding parties.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision dismissing their duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

They argued the Board erred in its interpretation of facts regarding their eligibility for a retirement allowance.

The Board acknowledged a misstatement of fact in its previous decision but found it had no impact on the outcome, as the applicants were still ineligible for the benefit under the collective agreement.

Finding no new evidence or issues raised, the Board denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed their duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The applicants argued that the union's procedure in entering into a Letter of Interpretation regarding seniority rights violated the union constitution and unfairly favoured certain employees.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicants raised no new evidence or arguments that were not already considered in the original decision.

The applicant union (CUPE) alleged that the employer hospital improperly assigned work normally performed by a Pharmacy Storekeeper in its bargaining unit to an Inventory Management Technician in the OPSEU bargaining unit.

The Board found that the work had historically been performed by a CUPE member and that the employer's preference for a technician did not justify removing the work from the CUPE unit, given the strong job protection language in the CUPE collective agreement.

The Board directed the employer to restore the work to the CUPE bargaining unit.