0118-00-ES North Top, Applicant v. Ministry of Labour, Responding Party.
Employment Practices Branch File No. 10003862
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 20, 2000
The Board is in receipt of correspondence dated October 4, 2000 from S. D.Brabant. The envelope is addressed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Enclosed is correspondence addressed to the Ministry of Labour seeking what is described as a third appeal.
This matter arises under the Employment Standard Act (the “ESA”). An apparent attempt by the employer to file an application for review was terminated by decision dated May 31, 2000. An apparent request for reconsideration of that decision was dismissed by decision dated July 27, 2000. Throughout this matter, the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements for filing an application for review. The applicant may also believe that the Ministry of Labour and the Ontario Labour Relations Board are the same entity. They are not. The Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour is a government department charged with administering the provisions of the ESA. The Ontario Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal mandated by statute to administer and enforce various pieces of legislation. Within that mandate, the Board hears appeals of decisions made by the Ministry of Labour under the provisions of the ESA. The Ministry is therefore a party to the legal proceedings before the Board as is an employee and employer. Determinations of the Board are generally final and binding and are not subject to an appeal.
The employer in this case has no basis on which to proceed before the Board. It has failed to file a proper appeal after being given opportunity to do so, and the matter has been dismissed. The Order of the Employment Standards Officer therefore stands. S. D. Brabant, on behalf of the employer, argues that the employer “is compliant” on the basis that certain monies were allegedly forwarded to the Receiver General.
I agree with the employer that the time spent on this appeal is “ridiculous” and that the matter may well have been able to be settled. However the employer has not cooperated in any meaningful way to that end in the proceedings before the Board. It has no appeal before the Board. The matter has been dismissed.
Having said that, in the interest of assisting the parties, I hereby refer this matter to the Manager of Field Services for the purpose of attempting to assist the employer in understanding why the Ministry takes the position that the employer is not “compliant”. The parties are to confer with a Labour Relations Officer for that purpose. The matter is otherwise dismissed.
“M. A. Nairn”
for the Board