Ivan’s Restaurants (North Bay) Ltd. v. Natalie Money and Ministry of Labour
File No.: 3892-98-ES Employment Practices Branch File No.: 11 000174
Before: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair.
Appearances: Claude Ledoux for the applicant; no one appearing for the responding party; Heidi Lazar-Meyn for the Ministry of Labour.
Decision of the Board: March 22, 2000
Decision of the Board
1This is an employer request for review of an Order to Pay, made pursuant to section 68 of the Employment Standards Act (the "Act").
2The hearing of this matter was scheduled for March 15, 2000. No one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the responding party employee. The Board ascertained through its materials that notice of the hearing had been provided to her. The Board then waited 30 minutes in case Ms. Money was merely delayed.
Ms. Money had still not appeared at the end of that period and the hearing was convened.
3Claude Ledoux testified for the applicant. Ms. Money worked the evening shift at his restaurant five to seven shifts per week, including every Friday, Saturday and Sunday evening. She also worked the occasional day shift. Ms. Money asked to be scheduled for more hours but Mr. Ledoux could not accommodate her. She then asked if he would mind if she took another job. He said he did not mind as long as the hours did not conflict with her shifts at Ivan’s. She then obtained a job at a restaurant called Valenti’s. The first week of her new employment was also the weekend of an annual festival in North Bay. It is a busy time for restaurants. Ms. Money left
Mr. Ledoux a note saying that she needed to work at Valenti’s on Friday and Saturday evening that week. Mr. Ledoux telephoned her and said he needed her those shifts and reminded her that she had said her new hours would not conflict with her Ivan’s shifts. She responded that Valenti’s needed her that weekend and that she was going to work there. Mr. Ledoux therefore did not schedule her for her shifts. On the Thursday of that week she telephoned Mr. Ledoux and complained that she had not been scheduled for any shifts. It was her position that Mr. Ledoux should have scheduled her for day shifts. Mr. Ledoux responded that other people already worked those shifts. She asked if she was fired and he replied that she was not fired and would be on the schedule the following week. Ms. Money then said she quit. Nevertheless Mr. Ledoux did schedule her to work the following Monday in the hope that she would appear but she did not. The following week she asked for her Record of Employment. Mr. Ledoux said he would only give it to her if she was really quitting because she could still come back to work if she wanted to. She said she did not want to.
4The Board ruled at the hearing that the uncontradicted evidence demonstrated that Ms. Money had quit her employment and was therefore not entitled to termination pay. The request for review would therefore be granted.
Disposition
5The Order to Pay is hereby rescinded. The Board directs that all of monies paid to the Director in trust, and the administrative fee, be returned to the applicant.
"Laura Trachuk"
for the Board