Karima Chatur

The applicant sought an employee review of a decision by an Employment Standards Officer not to make an Order to Pay against the employer.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the applicant failed to attend.

After standing down for 30 minutes as per its usual practice, the Board reconvened and dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision that ordered the employer to pay him $4.49.

The applicant provided uncontradicted evidence that he was owed for 84.7 regular hours, 9 overtime hours, and 44 hours of termination pay, plus vacation pay.

The employer did not appear at the hearing.

The Board accepted the applicant's evidence and ordered the employer to pay $1,109.16.

The applicant employer requested a review of an Order to Pay termination pay to a former employee, a refrigeration mechanic.

The employer argued the employee was covered by the construction exemption in Regulation 327(2)(e) of the Employment Standards Act, which exempts persons employed in the repair of works at the site thereof.

The Board found that the majority of the work performed by the employee was repair work at the customer's premises, rather than maintenance.

Consequently, the employee fell within the construction exemption and was not entitled to termination pay.

The Order to Pay was rescinded.

The applicant filed an employment standards application against the employer and the Ministry of Labour.

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

The employer appealed an Order to Pay in the amount of $3,873.60 for outstanding wages and vacation pay.

The employee failed to appear at the hearing.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence of the employer, the Board found that the employee worked 113 hours at $10.00 an hour and had not been paid.

The Board allowed the appeal in part, reducing the Order to Pay to $1,175.20 (including vacation pay) and ordered the balance of the monies held in trust returned to the employer.

The claimant applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for termination pay, alleging he was constructively dismissed due to continuous harassment and an alleged physical assault by his supervisor.

The Board found that the physical contact between the supervisor and the claimant was minimal and did not constitute an assault or a repudiation of the employment contract.

The Board also rejected the allegations of a campaign of harassment, finding that the employer had accommodated the claimant and that the claimant's subsequent resignation was voluntary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The responding employee requested an adjournment because she would be out of the country.

The applicant took no position and the Ministry of Labour consented.

The Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar to fix a new hearing date and assign a Labour Relations Officer to attempt a settlement.

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

On the date scheduled for the hearing, the applicant sought leave to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw and ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed, with $3,566.63 paid to the employee and $460.83 retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the administration fee.

The applicant employee sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay for an allegedly unpaid bonus and overtime.

The parties settled the overtime claim during the hearing.

On the bonus claim, the applicant argued the employer's bonus plan, which factored in cash and merchandise shortages, violated the prohibition against set-offs in section 8 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the bonus plan merely established a formula for calculating the bonus pool, rather than making unlawful deductions from wages already owed to individual employees.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay one week's termination pay to a former employee.

The employer argued that the employee, who worked for exactly three months, was not entitled to termination pay and was terminated for wilful misconduct after allegedly damaging equipment.

The Board found that an employee employed for exactly three months is entitled to notice under the Employment Standards Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that the employer failed to prove the employee's actions constituted wilful misconduct, as the evidence of deliberate or reckless damage was insufficient.

The Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicant, an account executive, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for approximately $40,000 in unpaid commissions.

The applicant resigned before the employer received payment from a client for a contract he had finalized.

The employer's compensation plan, signed by the applicant, explicitly stated that commissions were only payable on a cash receipts basis and that no commissions would be paid for payments received after termination.

The Board found that the compensation plan was a valid contract of employment and its terms limited the payment of commissions upon termination.

The application for review was dismissed.

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.

The applicant employer requested a review of an Order to Pay but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

After waiting the customary half hour, the Board granted the responding parties' request to dismiss the matter.

The application was terminated and the Director of Employment Standards was directed to pay the employee the monies per the Order to Pay.

The applicant employer requested a review of an Order to Pay.

On the scheduled hearing date, neither the applicant nor the responding employee appeared.

After waiting the customary half hour, the Board granted the Ministry of Labour's request to dismiss the application.

The Director of Employment Standards was directed to pay the monies to the employee as per the Order to Pay.

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.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the funds held in trust to be paid to the responding party employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant employer sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the applicant failed to appear.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the Director of Employment Standards to disburse the funds held in trust to the responding employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the applicant failed to appear.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the Director of Employment Standards to disburse the funds held in trust to the responding employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant, Zellers Incorporated, sought a review of an Order to Pay severance pay to the claimant following the closure of a Kmart store.

The applicant argued it was relieved of the obligation to pay severance because it had offered the claimant reasonable alternative employment at another store location.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the alternative position offered was reasonable, as its advantages outweighed the sole disadvantage of a longer bus commute.

The Board rescinded the Order to Pay, concluding the applicant was not obliged to pay severance pay.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's determination that she was not entitled to termination and severance pay because she had quit her employment.

The applicant alleged she was told by her manager to leave and not return due to her illness.

The Board found that the applicant was not terminated, noting she provided a doctor's note after the alleged termination, received no termination letter or Record of Employment, and continued to receive benefits.

Furthermore, the employer repeatedly asked her to return to work, which she refused.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a review of an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

On the morning of the scheduled hearing, the applicant left a voicemail stating his key witness was unavailable and he would not attend.

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing.

The responding parties requested the application be dismissed.

The Board found there was no proper request for an adjournment and dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.