Graine McGrath

The employee filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for termination pay on the basis of wilful misconduct.

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

As the employee bore the onus of establishing a basis for the claim, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to his failure to attend.

The applicant, a waitress, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision refusing her termination pay on the basis of wilful misconduct.

The employer alleged she participated in a card game with customers and failed to report another employee looking at payroll records.

The employer did not attend the hearing.

The Board found the applicant's limited involvement in the alleged viewing of pay statements by another employee did not meet the standard of wilful misconduct.

The application was allowed and the employer was ordered to pay termination pay in lieu of notice.

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 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.