Extasie Investments Ltd. v. Haskim, 2000 CanLII 12566

Extasie Investments Ltd. v. Haskim, 2000 CanLII 12566

2871-99-ES Extasie Investments Ltd., Applicant v. Janice L. Haskim, Marian E. Dempster and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.

Employment Practices Branch File No. 10003267

2872-99-ES Extasie Investments Ltd., Applicant v. Margaret L. Wilson and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.

Employment Practices Branch File No. 10003520

BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair.

APPEARANCES: Joseph Kohut, Sharon Kohut and Jean Leybourne for the applicant; Janice Haskim, Marian Dempster and Margaret Wilson for responding parties; Stephen Mason for the Ministry of Labour.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 17, 2000

1This is an employer appeal under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act (the “Act”) of (1) an Order to Pay, #52806 in the amount of $424.14 ($324.14 + $100 administration fee) in respect of Janice L. Haskim and Marian E. Dempster and (2) an Order to Pay #52804 in the amount of $2,734.93 ($2,486.30 + $248.63 administration fee) in respect of Margaret L. Wilson. It was agreed that these two separate matters would be heard together.

2The employer takes the position that Ms. Dempster is owed more than the amount of $74.80 in Order to Pay #52806 and, in fact, is owed $581.52 less the $74.80 in the Order to Pay for a total of $506.72. Ms. Dempster takes the position that she is entitled to $1,184.80 less the $74.80 in the Order to Pay.

3The employer takes the position that Ms. Haskim is entitled to $180.22 not $249.34 as set out in the Order to Pay #52806.

4The employer takes the position that the Officer erred in providing Ms. Wilson termination pay, vacation pay, overtime pay, pay for lunch breaks not taken, public holiday pay and money of an unauthorized deduction in the amount of $200.00.

5The employer operates a chain of lingerie retail outlets. Ms. Dempster, Ms. Haskim and Ms. Wilson all worked as retail clerks in the Sudbury store.

6The employer called three witnesses, Joseph Kohut, the Owner, Sharon Kohut, the Manager and Jean Leybourne, the District Manager. Through these witnesses and supporting documentation, the employer attempted to prove the errors that, it said, had been made by the Officer. Mr. Kohut testified as to the reason for the deduction of $200.00 from Ms. Wilson’s pay cheque. Mrs. Kohut testified as to the request to have staff members attend work 15 minutes prior to the opening of the shop. Ms. Leybourne testified as to the hours worked by Ms. Dempster, Ms. Haskim and Ms. Wilson.

7Each of the three responding parties presented evidence. It was during this part of the hearing that both Ms. Haskim and Ms. Wilson decided to only pursue the amounts as set out in the Orders to Pay. Ms. Dempster provided her own calculation of the additional amounts owed to her.

8In final argument, the Ministry of Labour submitted that the Orders to Pay should be accepted and the amounts set out therein should be paid to Ms. Haskim, Ms. Dempster and Ms. Wilson. The employer agrees that Ms. Dempster is entitled to an additional amount.

9After considering the evidence presented by the parties, the Board finds that the Orders to Pay are correct except for the agreed amount that should be paid to Ms. Dempster. Neither the employer nor Ms. Dempster presented any evidence that would alter the Orders to Pay which, as was stated by the Ministry, were well considered and supported by the facts of these cases. Both applications for review are dismissed.

DISPOSITION

10Accordingly, I order as follows:

(i) that the wages paid to the "Director in trust" in relation to this matter be disbursed as follows:

to Ms. Dempster $ 74.80

to Ms. Haskim $ 249.34

to Ms. Wilson $ 2,486.30

(ii) that the administration fee as set out in the Order to Pay be retained by the Government of Ontario Consolidated Revenue Fund $ 348.63

total amount held by the Director in trust $ 3,159.07

(iii) that the employer pay an additional amount to Ms. Dempster in the amount of $506.72 forthwith.

“Stephen Raymond”

for the Board