Beth Symes

The applicant union applied to set aside a Review Officer's order that identified the Manager of Physical Operations as the comparable male job class for registered nurses under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties had used a point factor job evaluation system, and the Review Officer had selected the male job class closest in points.

The Tribunal panel split three ways.

The Chair revoked the order, rejecting the closest male comparator and banding approaches, and directed the use of a male wage line approach to redress systemic gender discrimination.

Two members dissented from the Chair's jurisdictional authority to order a wage line approach.

One dissenting member found that the highest paid lower valued male job class should be the comparator under section 6(3)(b) of the Act.

The other dissenting member upheld the Review Officer's original order.

The Hospital for Sick Children objected to two Orders by a Review Officer that re-evaluated the female job classes of registered nurse (RN) and assistant clinical co-ordinator (ACC) to higher grades under the Pay Equity Act.

The Nurses sought to uphold the RN Order or, alternatively, argued the Hospital's job evaluation system was gender biased.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal majority found the Nurses failed to prove the system was gender biased.

Applying the system, the majority varied the RN Order, finding the four RN positions evaluated fell into two distinct job classes (Grades 10 and 11), and revoked the ACC Order, returning it to Grade 12.

The dissenting Chair would have upheld the RN Order placing them in Grade 12.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services requested a hearing to review an order naming it as the employer for pay equity purposes of employees at the Kingston-Frontenac Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal examined the relationship between the Ministry and the CAS, focusing on financial control, responsibility for compensation practices, and determination of services provided.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry exercises fundamental control over the CAS's finances, services, and compensation practices, despite the CAS having routine control over day-to-day operations.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Ministry is the employer for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act and directed the Ministry and the union to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The Pay Equity Office (P.E.O.) applied to the Tribunal seeking to enforce a Review Officer's order against the employer and the union.

The employer and the union had previously settled their dispute regarding the pay equity plan and argued that the P.E.O. lacked standing to challenge their settlement or enforce the order.

The Tribunal held that the P.E.O. is not a party to proceedings under subsection 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act and does not meet the test for participation under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the P.E.O. has no statutory jurisdiction to review settlements or enforce orders in these circumstances, and dismissed the application for lack of standing.

A review officer referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under s. 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, forming the opinion that the employer was not complying with an order to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The Tribunal noted that hearings are de novo and the review officer's opinion is not evidence.

The Tribunal directed the union to file an application if it intended to allege non-compliance, and scheduled a hearing to determine how to proceed.

The employers and bargaining agents disputed the number of job classes and pay equity plans required for elementary school teachers under the Pay Equity Act, 1987.

The employers argued that all elementary teachers constituted a single job class and that separate pay equity plans were required for male and female teachers.

The Tribunal held that elementary teachers are divided into seven distinct job classes based on their different educational qualifications and corresponding salary ranges.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that a single pay equity plan was appropriate for all elementary teachers, as they form a single bargaining unit represented jointly by their respective branch affiliates.

The Tribunal also permitted limited intervenor status to the secondary school teachers' federation to provide historical context on teacher compensation grids.

The Applicant union requested a hearing to review an Order of a Review Officer which found the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board to be the employer of the library staff for pay equity purposes.

The union argued that the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was the true employer.

Applying the four criteria from Haldimand-Norfolk (No.3), the Tribunal found that the Municipality exercises substantial control over the Library Board's budget, heavily influences compensation practices, and that public library services are a core, integral activity of the Municipality.

The Tribunal concluded that the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is the employer of the library workers for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, and revoked the Review Officer's Order.

The applicant union sought disclosure of information regarding employees outside the bargaining unit to assist in negotiating a pay equity plan, as there were no male comparators within the unit.

The respondent employer refused to provide compensation schedules and job descriptions, arguing they were not yet relevant, and refused to provide names citing confidentiality.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the employer must disclose job titles, gender composition, compensation schedules, and existing job descriptions for all positions outside the bargaining unit to enable informed and rational bargaining.

The Tribunal declined to order the disclosure of employee names at this preliminary stage.