Ann Burke

The applicants, Emergency Unit Clerks, filed an application alleging that their employer and union failed to reasonably evaluate their job class during a pay equity maintenance process, specifically regarding added overnight and switchboard duties.

The employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the added duties were captured in the job descriptions and that the applicants' concerns related more to workload and stress than the physical activity and dexterity subfactors they challenged.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to establish that the job evaluation plan unreasonably excluded important job information or violated the Pay Equity Act.

A group of employees applied under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer and union violated section 5 by improperly evaluating the Unit Clerk job class in an updated pay equity plan.

The employer and union requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were merely disagreeing with the evaluation conclusions rather than alleging a failure to apply the statutory criteria.

As the Tribunal will not second-guess reasonable evaluations agreed to by the workplace parties, the application was dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The applicants, a group of employees, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer and union improperly evaluated the Unit Clerk job class in their pay equity plan, violating section 5 of the Act.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis.

The Tribunal noted that a complaint that one job class should have been evaluated higher is not meaningful without more, and that considerable deference is owed to negotiated pay equity plans.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act regarding the employer's failure to comply with Orders issued by a Pay Equity Review Officer.

The parties reached an agreement on the remedial consequences.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay the unionized and non-unionized employees the pay equity adjustments, including interest, and to adjust their job rates in accordance with the agreed schedule.

The matter was terminated.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's order which found its non-union proxy pay equity plan non-compliant with the Pay Equity Act.

The employer argued that a 14-year delay between the posting of the plan and the issuance of the order, stemming from an anonymous complaint, caused substantial and irreparable prejudice amounting to an abuse of process.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal agreed, finding the unexplained delay prejudiced the employer's ability to mitigate liability and brought the pay equity system into disrepute.

The Tribunal rescinded the Review Officer's order.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent City failed to maintain pay equity when it applied a market adjustment wage increase to a male job class (Residential Mechanical Inspector) without adjusting the proportional value wage line.

The City argued the job class was no longer a 'representative male job class' due to the market adjustment necessitated by recruitment difficulties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (majority) held that the City violated its duty to maintain pay equity under s. 7(1) of the Pay Equity Act, as the Act does not permit a representative male job class to become unrepresentative post-achievement without a statutory exemption.

The Tribunal ordered the City to review the wage line and pay retroactive adjustments.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application, finding the market-adjusted rate anomalous and not reflective of gender discrimination.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal for enforcement of a Review Officer's Order.

The Tribunal previously made orders against the employer.

The employer requested reconsideration to alter one of the orders regarding newspaper advertisements for former employees.

The union did not oppose, and the Pay Equity Office did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration and amended the order to specify the newspapers and extend the timeline for placing the advertisements.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer.

The employer conceded non-compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay retroactive pay equity adjustments with interest, adjust job rates, publish notices in local newspapers for former employees, and post the decision in the workplace.

The applicant employer sought to stay the enforcement of a Review Officer's Order requiring pay equity adjustments, arguing it lacked the financial means to comply due to insufficient provincial funding.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis and to deny standing to numerous "interested parties" named by the applicant.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the interested parties did not have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome and declined to grant them intervener status.

The Tribunal also granted the union's motion to dismiss the application, reaffirming that lack of funding is not a defense to an employer's statutory obligation to comply with a pay equity plan or the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die as the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, adjourning the matter for 30 days, after which it would be considered abandoned if no party requested it to proceed.

The scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its counsel experienced a sudden medical condition requiring immediate bed rest.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that it would be unreasonable to expect another lawyer in the firm's small employment and labour section to take carriage of the matter on such short notice.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 23 and 27, 2015, due to their counsel's sudden medical condition requiring immediate bed rest.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the medical emergency constituted extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment for the February 23 hearing date and reserved its decision regarding the February 27 date pending a review of submitted hearing materials.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, with the consent of the Pay Equity Office, due to medical issues faced by the applicant's counsel.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the lengthy history of the case and the interests of the responding employees, but warned that further adjournments would only be granted in the most compelling circumstances.

The respondent school board brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's pay equity application for failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Tribunal had previously questioned its jurisdiction over the application, but upon receiving further information from the Pay Equity Office, confirmed the application was properly before it.

Applying its reasoning from a previous decision involving similar applications, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis.

The parties to two cross-applications under the Pay Equity Act advised the Tribunal that the matters had been settled.

The Tribunal noted that under section 25.1 of the Act, a settlement is binding and can be the subject of a complaint if not complied with.

Having regard to the settlement, the Tribunal closed its files.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application against Touchstone Youth Centre.

Following a previous decision on March 4, 2014, the Tribunal received no further communication from the Pay Equity Office.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the application terminated.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal regarding the respondent's non-compliance with an order to pay $870.36.

The respondent had made an assignment into bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act operated to stay the proceedings, rejecting the Office's argument that the stay did not apply until the Tribunal confirmed the order.

The Tribunal gave the Office a deadline to advise if the stay had been lifted or the trustee discharged.

The applicants and respondents reached a settlement regarding a pay equity dispute and requested that the Tribunal issue a consent order revoking a Review Officer's Order.

The Tribunal declined to issue the requested consent order, noting its established practice that it will not vary or revoke orders without a sufficient evidentiary basis, such as an agreed statement of facts.

The Tribunal emphasized that the written settlement is already binding on the parties under the Pay Equity Act, making the consent order unnecessary.

The applicants, non-union employees in various female job classes, challenged the employer's posted pay equity plan, alleging their jobs were not accurately or reasonably evaluated.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the applications for failure to disclose a prima facie breach of the Pay Equity Act and for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the employer's motions, finding the applications disclosed a prima facie case.

The Tribunal also ruled that the applicants were limited to challenging the sub-factors they had raised at Review Services, but ordered the employer to produce job evaluation documents for other job classes in relevant similar value groups to allow the applicants to particularize their claims.

The union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act to enforce a settlement, arguing that pay equity adjustments should have been added to wage rates prior to the application of general wage percentage increases from the collective agreement.

The Tribunal found that the settlement was clear and unambiguous, and did not dictate the complex calculation method proposed by the union.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had appropriately implemented the terms of the settlement by paying the adjustments as an aggregate sum, and dismissed the application.