Heidi Ann Lazar-Meyn

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

The applicant's wages were reduced by the employer, Provincial International Cranes, which the Board found constituted constructive dismissal.

The Board ordered Provincial to pay 8 weeks' termination pay.

However, the Board dismissed the claim for the wage differential during the period the applicant continued working at the reduced rate.

The Board also dismissed the claim against Konecranes Canada Inc., finding no evidence that it was a related employer under section 12 of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid wages and vacation pay owed to a terminated employee.

The employer argued that the employee's hourly wage included vacation pay and that a final cheque covered both termination pay and unpaid wages.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding no evidence of an agreement to include vacation pay in the hourly rate, no discrete calculation of vacation pay as required by the Employment Standards Act, and no evidence that the final cheque was for anything other than termination pay.

The employer was ordered to pay the outstanding amounts.

The applicant, a former restaurant cook, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for unpaid overtime.

Both parties failed to maintain reliable records of hours worked and wages paid, which were handled strictly in cash.

The Board found the applicant's claim of over 250 overtime hours exaggerated and the employer's claim of providing lieu time implausible.

The Board determined the applicant worked 120 overtime hours at a regular rate of $9.00 per hour, and ordered the employer to pay the $3.50 per hour shortfall plus vacation pay, totaling $436.80.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving notice.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The applicant employee filed an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act for a review of an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for unpaid wages.

The Ministry of Labour raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because no written order or written refusal had been issued, and the two-year period for a deemed refusal had not elapsed.

The Board agreed, finding the application premature, and dismissed it without prejudice to the employee's right to file a fresh application at the appropriate time.

The applicant employer sought an adjournment of a hearing to review an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant's counsel requested the adjournment on the day of the hearing because another lawyer with carriage of the file had accepted a retainer on another matter, and for unspecified personal and corporate reasons.

The claimant opposed the adjournment.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting it does not grant adjournments for the convenience of counsel or for unspecified reasons.

As the applicant called no evidence and made no submissions on the merits, the application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay awarding termination pay, public holiday pay, vacation pay, and unpaid wages to the worker.

The employer argued the worker was an independent contractor.

The Board applied the four-fold and organization tests, finding that the worker was under the direct control of the employer, provided no materials, bore no risk of loss, and was integral to the employer's business.

The Board concluded the worker was an employee and affirmed the Order to Pay, noting that the Act prohibits setting off wages for alleged poor quality work.

The applicants sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to find termination pay owing to employees formerly employed by a housekeeping service.

The application proceeded in respect of one employee whose employment was terminated when the previous employer lost its service contract to the responding party.

The Board found that the employee was not offered employment by the responding party, nor was notice of termination or pay in lieu provided.

Relying on section 13.1(4) of the Employment Standards Act, the Board ordered the responding party to pay the employee $239.25 as pay in lieu of notice.

The employer sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid overtime and public holiday pay.

The employer argued the employee was exempt as a 'taxi cab driver' because he drove vans to transport passengers to the airport.

The Board held that an employee is only employed as a taxi cab driver if they spend the majority of their work hours in a week driving a vehicle with seating for not more than nine persons.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be rescheduled for hearing to apply this test.

The applicant hair salon operator sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The issue was whether the responding party hair stylist was an employee or an independent contractor.

The applicant claimed the stylist rented a chair for $100 a week and kept her own fees, while the stylist claimed she was paid a weekly cash salary of $300.

The Board preferred the applicant's evidence, finding it improbable that an employer would pay a cash salary without deductions.

The Board concluded the stylist was an independent contractor and set aside the Order to Pay.

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring him to pay four weeks' termination pay to a former employee.

The employee failed to return from vacation, claiming medical reasons through her mother, but never provided a medical certificate or an expected return date despite the employer's requests.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employee repudiated her contract of employment by refusing to show up for work, which constituted wilful neglect of duty under s. 57(10)(c) of the Employment Standards Act.

The order to pay termination pay was rescinded.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay for unpaid wages in the amount of $1,295.94.

At the scheduled hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the employer.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned and ordered the Director of Employment Standards to disburse the money held in trust to the responding employee.

The applicant employee appealed an Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

Neither the applicant nor the employer attended the scheduled hearing.

After waiting the customary 30 minutes, the Alternate Chair dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The appellants appealed a Ministry of Labour inspector's decision finding that the Toronto Transit Commission had complied with a previous order.

The appellants sought remedies including declarations that the inspector permitted the employer to contravene the Occupational Health and Safety Act by not allowing a worker committee member to accompany him during his investigation.

The Board struck these requests for relief, holding that its remedial jurisdiction under section 61 is limited to the powers of an inspector, and the scheme of the Act is not concerned with policing the actions of inspectors.

The remaining issues were referred to a Labour Relations Officer.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

Neither the applicant nor the responding employer appeared at the scheduled hearing.

Upon the request of counsel for the Ministry of Labour, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to advance his claim and the lack of evidence to support it.