0573-00-ES NAC a division of New Automation, Applicant v. Andrew Fulmes and Ministry of Labour, Responding Parties.

Employment Practices Branch File No.: 52006365

BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 6, 2000

[1]. This is an employer application filed pursuant to section 68 of the Employment Standards Act (the “Act”) requesting review of an Order to Pay No. 58333 dated March 15, 2000 issued by Employment Standards Officer Bernie Marcoux.

[2]. The Order to Pay clearly states an application for review together with the required payment “must be made within 45 days of the date of this order”. Pursuant to section 68(3) of the Act the deadline for making this application was May 1, 2000. The application for review was received by the Board on May 23, 2000.

[3]. In response to the Registrar’s letter of May 24, 2000 the applicant employer requests an extension of time for filing this appeal. The reasons given for the delay are set out in the applicant’s letter dated June 2, 2000. Mr. R.A. Davies, the President of the applicant employer, requests the extension because the person assigned to deal with this matter was away from the office on business. The applicant states “the impact of this travel on Mr. Ketelaar’s (the staff member handling this file) schedule prevented expeditious handling of the matter”.

[4]. Section 68(4) grants the Board the discretion to extend the time for applying if the Board considers it appropriate to do so. In this case the fact that the staff member handling this file was away on business does not constitute grounds for the Board to exercise its discretion under section 68(4). The business of the employer does not stop operating just because one of its staff members is absent for whatever reason.

DISPOSITION

[5]. The application is therefore dismissed as untimely.

“Inge M. Stamp”

for the Board