OLRB 2000

The applicant employee filed an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act for a review of an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for unpaid wages.

The Ministry of Labour raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because no written order or written refusal had been issued, and the two-year period for a deemed refusal had not elapsed.

The Board agreed, finding the application premature, and dismissed it without prejudice to the employee's right to file a fresh application at the appropriate time.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, which the responding employee opposed.

The applicant was advised to attend the hearing to request the adjournment but failed to appear.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and failed to attend, the Board dismissed the application and ordered the funds held in trust to be disbursed to the employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employers bargained in bad faith by insisting on terms regarding insurance and brokerage fees that were worse than those in the pre-existing service agreements.

The Board held that once the parties bargained a collective agreement (or had one imposed by arbitration), the service agreement terms on those subjects were superseded.

Following the expiry of the statutory freeze, the employers were entitled to alter those terms.

The bad faith bargaining complaint was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of two referrals of grievances to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party did not file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate.

The Board granted the applicant's request and adjourned the matters to August 31, 2000.

The employee appealed under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties resolved their dispute, and the employer filed a Full and Final Release signed by the employee.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter.

The applicant union requested an adjournment of its unfair labour practice complaint pending the outcome of its planned application for judicial review of a related certification decision.

The responding employer opposed the adjournment.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting that the applicant indicated it might proceed regardless of the judicial review outcome, and that delay is inherently prejudicial.

The matter was referred to a Labour Relations Officer for settlement discussions or scheduling.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding union violated sections 73(2) and 76 of the Labour Relations Act during a displacement certification campaign, and sought consent to prosecute.

The Board dismissed both applications for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found no allegations of the responding union bargaining with an employer to engage section 73(2), and noted a trade union is not a 'person' capable of seeking a remedy for intimidation under section 76.

The request for consent to prosecute was also dismissed as the standard was not met.

The applicant employee appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision refusing to issue an order to pay against the employer.

Prior to a hearing, the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein the employer agreed to pay the applicant $400 net.

Having regard to the settlement, the Board terminated the proceeding.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, which found that the responding employee was entitled to minimum wages and vacation pay for his nine-week period of employment.

The employer argued that the employee was hired on a commission-only basis and was exempt from minimum wage protections as a commissioned salesperson under Regulation 325.

The Board found that the employee, who spent almost his entire employment period working out of the employer's office making telephone calls, did not fall within the exemption for salespersons who normally make sales away from the employer's place of business.

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

The responding party, Patricia Region Senior Services Inc., requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing due to its counsel's scheduling conflict with another Board matter.

Several parties opposed the request.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the adjournment request, finding that a scheduling conflict for a hearing several weeks away was not a sufficiently compelling reason to delay the proceedings, especially given the multiple parties involved whose counsel might face similar conflicts if the hearing were rescheduled.

The applicant, a director of a company, applied to review an order to pay issued against him for unpaid wages owed to several employees.

The applicant did not dispute his liability as a director but challenged the quantum owed to two specific employees.

The Ministry of Labour consented to reducing the amount owed to one employee.

For the second employee, the applicant argued the amount should be pro-rated because the employee worked from home and engaged in other entrepreneurial activities.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the employee's timesheets were submitted weekly without challenge and the company's own records supported the hours claimed.

The order to pay was amended to reflect the consented reduction, and the application was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed well beyond the 45-day time limit and the applicant failed to pay the required amount of the order to the Director in trust.

The Board held that it could not consider extending the time limit until the payment was made.

As the applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirements, the application remained terminated.

The responding party requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision, asserting that its principal missed the hearing due to heavy traffic.

The Board indicated its inclination to revoke the previous decision and relist the matters for hearing, and directed the applicant to advise the Board of its position on the request.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding parties were a common employer.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued declarations and orders as requested in the settlement, including a declaration that Trillium Electrical Contractor Inc. is bound to the collective agreements and an order that it pay $5,500.00 in damages for unpaid owner-operator fees.

The applicant filed an application regarding a grievance.

The responding party advised the Board that the grievance had been resolved and the warning notice removed from the applicant's file.

The Board indicated it would dismiss the application as moot unless the applicant provided good and sufficient reasons to proceed.

At a pre-hearing conference involving multiple related employer, sale of business, and unfair labour practice applications, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the order of proceeding.

The applicant unions alleged that the corporate responding parties conspired to form a new entity to circumvent bargaining rights.

The Board directed that the corporate responding parties proceed first to call their evidence, followed by the Carpenters union, and then the applicant unions.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision finding he was an independent contractor and not entitled to ESA protection.

The Board applied the fourfold test and determined the applicant was an employee, as the employer controlled his work and provided the necessary tools.

However, the Board found the applicant had acquiesced to a unilateral reduction in his commission rate by continuing to work for over a year without objection.

The Board also applied the six-month limitation period under the ESA, barring most of his claims.

The employer was ordered to pay $500 for a commission earned within the limitation period.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for severance and termination pay.

The applicant's employment was terminated in 1990, but he did not file a claim until 1996, after learning of a successful claim by other employees.

The applicant argued the employer was estopped from relying on the limitation period due to statements in his termination letter.

The Board held that section 82(2) of the Employment Standards Act imposes a strict cap on the recovery of money to the two years prior to the Director's knowledge of the claim.

The Board found no basis to relieve against this cap and dismissed the appeal as statute-barred.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Board decision that had dismissed the application on the basis of delay.

The Board granted the request for reconsideration, directing the Registrar to list the matter for a one-day consultation and setting deadlines for both parties to file their documents and responses.

The applicant filed an application under section 174 of the Environmental Protection Act alleging his termination was a reprisal for providing information to the Ministry of the Environment.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion to strike sections II(b) and II(c) of the applicant's statement of facts, arguing they were irrelevant and did not disclose a prima facie violation.

The Board declined to strike the paragraphs, finding they were pleaded in support of the reprisal assertion and that their relevance should be argued before the hearing panel.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to list for hearing.