L. Eisenberg

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay termination pay, arguing that the employee had quit rather than being terminated.

The employee did not appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the employer's own Record of Employment indicated the employee was terminated, and the employer took no steps to correct it or respond to the employee's letter asserting he was dismissed.

The Board concluded the employee was terminated and upheld the Order to Pay.

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

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to advance its claim and ordered the funds held in trust to be disbursed to the responding employees and the Ministry of Labour.

The Board denied the employees' request for travel expenses, noting it lacks jurisdiction to grant costs under section 68 of the Act.

The applicants sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer regarding a former employee who worked for them for seven weeks.

The officer found the employee worked 52 to 61 hours per week, but the applicants testified she worked approximately 5 hours per weekday plus some babysitting.

The employee did not appear at the hearing.

The Board accepted the applicants' uncontradicted evidence that the employee worked 187 hours total and was compensated at a permitted rate.

The Board amended the order to reflect only $65.87 owed in unpaid vacation pay, directing the balance of funds held in trust to be returned to the applicants.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay termination pay to the responding party employee.

The employer argued the employee had abandoned her job or, alternatively, was guilty of wilful neglect of duty due to prolonged medical absences.

The Board found that the employee did not form the subjective intent or take objective steps to quit her employment.

Furthermore, the employee's absences were caused by a medical condition and did not constitute wilful neglect of duty.

The Board also noted that the employer had condoned the absences by failing to warn the employee that her job was in jeopardy.

The application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was confirmed.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

A hearing was scheduled for April 18, 2000.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

After waiting half an hour, the Board dismissed the application.

The Board ordered the wages held in trust to be disbursed to the employee and the administration fee to be retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay against his former employer.

The applicant alleged he was terminated or constructively dismissed following a workplace dispute.

The employer maintained that the applicant was only suspended and subsequently quit when he refused to return to work.

The Board found that the employer never intended to terminate the applicant's employment and that the applicant had quit.

The Board also rejected the constructive dismissal claim.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for vacation pay owed by his bankrupt employer.

The Officer had applied a newly enacted six-month limitation period under the Employment Standards Act, which barred the claim.

The Board held that the statutory amendment reducing the limitation period from two years to six months did not apply retroactively to extinguish the applicant's vested right to recover vacation pay.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the outstanding vacation pay plus interest.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for overtime pay.

The applicant argued he was a lead hand, not a manager, and thus entitled to overtime pay for the excessive hours he worked.

The Board found that the applicant's position as Afternoon Shift Supervisor was managerial in character, as he supervised up to 85 employees, attended management meetings, and only occasionally worked alongside production employees.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for overtime and vacation pay.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The responding parties moved for dismissal based on abandonment.

The Board, satisfied that the applicant had notice, dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear.