20 total
Application for unpaid wages dismissed as the applicants failed to establish an employment relationship.
The applicants sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for alleged unpaid wages.
The primary applicant claimed he was hired as a manager to set up a lawn care franchise and sought over $14,000 in unpaid wages.
The responding party denied the existence of an employment relationship, asserting the applicant was only a prospective hire who had not completed the necessary paperwork or vetting.
The Board found overwhelming evidence militating against an employment relationship, noting the absence of a written contract, paycheques, tax forms, or direct supervision.
The application was dismissed as the applicants failed to establish they were employees under the Employment Standards Act.
Application for review allowed in part; employer ordered to pay recalculated unpaid wages and vacation pay.
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.
Partial settlement reached in employment standards review; further hearing scheduled for constructive dismissal claim.
The employer and the employee both sought a review of an employment standards officer's order to pay.
During the hearing, the parties reached a partial settlement regarding outstanding wages, commissions, and vacation pay.
The Board dismissed the employer's application for review, ordered the release of funds held in trust to the employee, and directed the employer to pay an additional sum.
The Board scheduled a further hearing to determine the remaining issue of whether the employee was constructively dismissed and entitled to termination pay.
Order to pay rescinded; former employee not entitled to commissions on contracts where her contribution was merely preliminary.
The employer applied to review an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid commissions and vacation pay to a former sales executive.
The claimant argued she was entitled to commissions on contracts she secured before resigning, even though the employer only received fees after implementing recommendations post-departure.
The Board rescinded the Order to Pay, finding the claimant's contribution in merely securing the initial contracts was too remote and preliminary to confer entitlement to commissions on the fees ultimately received.
Employer's deduction of client bad debt from broker's commissions constituted an improper set-off against wages.
The employer appealed an Order to Pay wages after withholding $10,280 from a terminated broker's commissions to cover a client's bad debt.
The employer argued the deduction was an allowable expense or, alternatively, authorized by the employee's e-mail.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the deduction was an improper set-off against wages under the Employment Standards Act, and that the e-mail lacked sufficient particularity to constitute a written authorization for the deduction.
Board corrects typographical errors in statutory references in its previous decision.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct typographical errors in its previous decision dated June 14, 2001.
The references to subsections 82.4 and 82.3 of the Employment Standards Act were corrected to read subsections 82.3(4) and 82.3(1), respectively.
Order to pay rescinded as the claimed quarterly payments were a discretionary bonus conditional on profitability.
The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay $11,000 in unpaid wages and vacation pay to the respondent claimant.
The claimant argued she was entitled to an unconditional quarterly payment of $2,500 as part of her oral employment contract.
The employer contended the payments were a discretionary bonus conditional on the company's Toronto office becoming profitable.
The Board preferred the employer's evidence, finding the bonus was conditional on profitability, a condition that was never met.
The Board concluded the discretionary bonus did not fall under the definition of 'wages' in the Employment Standards Act and rescinded the Order to Pay.
Application for review of order to pay dismissed after applicant failed to attend the hearing.
The applicant employer sought a review of an order to pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
A hearing was scheduled, but neither the applicant nor the responding party employee attended.
After waiting the standard 30 minutes, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear.
The Board directed the Director of Employment Standards to pay out the monies held in trust to the claimant.
Order to Pay vacation pay rescinded as employer proved full compliance and non-employment of claimants.
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.
Order to pay termination pay rescinded after uncontested evidence showed the employee quit.
The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay for eight weeks of termination pay issued in favour of the employee.
The employee did not attend the hearing.
Based on the uncontested testimony of a managerial employee, the Board found that the employee had telephoned the employer, requested a Record of Employment, and stated she was quitting.
The Board concluded the employee was not terminated, rescinded the Order to Pay, and ordered the funds held in trust returned to the employer.
Adjournment granted conditionally upon the applicant paying $300 in costs to the employee.
The applicant employer sought an adjournment of a hearing to review an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay, citing the President's pre-existing business commitment out of the country.
The Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the applicant reimburse the employee $300 for costs associated with his attendance at the scheduled hearing.
If the applicant fails to pay within one week, the adjournment request and the application will be deemed dismissed.
Board orders employer to pay $3,965 in unpaid wages after employer fails to attend hearing.
The applicant employee sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay.
The employer failed to attend the hearing.
Based on the employee's uncontested evidence that she was not paid her base salary of $2,000 per month for two months of work, the Board found she was owed $4,000 in wages, less $35 already paid.
The Board substituted its finding for the Officer's and ordered the employer to pay $3,965 plus interest.
Application for review dismissed after applicant was denied an adjournment and failed to adduce evidence.
The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay the claimant one week's pay in lieu of notice of termination.
At the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment to seek legal counsel, which the Board denied because the applicant had ample notice of the hearing and the case was not complex.
Following the denial of the adjournment, the applicant chose not to introduce any evidence.
As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Board dismissed the application and affirmed the Officer's order.
Commission-only employee working from employer's office is not exempt from minimum wage protections.
The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, which found that the responding employee was entitled to minimum wages and vacation pay for his nine-week period of employment.
The employer argued that the employee was hired on a commission-only basis and was exempt from minimum wage protections as a commissioned salesperson under Regulation 325.
The Board found that the employee, who spent almost his entire employment period working out of the employer's office making telephone calls, did not fall within the exemption for salespersons who normally make sales away from the employer's place of business.
The application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was upheld.
Employer appeal allowed in part; employee entitled to training wages but not termination pay.
The employer appealed an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.
The Board found that the employee was entitled to wages for a 14-hour training period, as it constituted work under the Act.
The Board also found that the employee resigned and was not terminated, so no termination pay was owed.
The parties agreed on the amount owed for holiday premiums.
The Order to Pay was varied accordingly.
Applicant found to be an employee, not an independent contractor; awarded $2,869.72 in unpaid wages.
The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay unpaid wages against his former company, which had declared bankruptcy.
The central issue was whether the applicant was an employee or an independent contractor.
The Board found that despite working with limited supervision as an arbitrator and appraiser, the applicant was an employee because he was paid a base salary, did not pay his own expenses, worked exclusively for the company, and had no written independent contractor agreement.
The Board ordered the bankrupt company to pay the applicant $2,869.72 in unpaid wages.
Application for review of order to pay dismissed due to applicant's failure to appear.
The applicant employer sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.
The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing despite receiving notice.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and ordered the funds held in trust to be paid out to the responding employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Employer's appeal dismissed; ordering an employee to leave after an ultimatum constitutes termination, not resignation.
The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay for termination pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
The employer argued that the employee was not fired but had quit after issuing an ultimatum regarding working conditions.
The Board found that even accepting the employer's version of events, the employee had only stated an intention to quit if his demands were not met.
By telling the employee he was quitting and ordering him to leave the premises before the employee actually resigned, the employer effectively terminated the employment.
The employer's appeal was dismissed and the Order to Pay was confirmed.
Application for review of an Order to Pay dismissed due to the applicant's failure to attend.
The applicant employer filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
After waiting the normal thirty minutes, the Board dismissed the application for review.
The Board affirmed the Order to Pay and directed that the monies held in trust be distributed to the responding employee.
Hearing adjourned on consent due to the illness of the responding employer's principal.
The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.
At the outset of the hearing, the responding employer requested an adjournment because its principal was too ill to attend.
The applicant and the Ministry of Labour consented to the adjournment.
The Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar for re-scheduling.
