Bruce Budd

The applicant requested that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal hold its proceedings in abeyance pending the decision of an interest Board of Arbitration.

The applicant argued the arbitration decision would significantly impact its pay equity application.

The respondent opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal declined to defer its proceedings, finding that the interest arbitration did not address the same issues, particularly whether the parties were implementing their current amended pay equity plan in accordance with its terms.

The Tribunal received letters from counsel and agreed to cancel scheduled hearing days.

The Tribunal declined to add the Group of Employees at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital to the complaint, despite the respondents' qualified consent, because the employees had not raised their complaint at Review Services, depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

L'employeur a présenté une requête visant à faire déclarer irrecevable la plainte d'un groupe de bibliotechniciennes syndiquées qui contestaient le programme d'équité salariale négocié entre l'employeur et leur syndicat.

Le Tribunal a conclu qu'il avait compétence pour entendre une telle plainte, car la présomption d'approbation de l'article 14(5) de la Loi sur l'équité salariale peut être réfutée.

Cependant, la majorité du Tribunal a statué que les employées n'avaient pas démontré une erreur sérieuse et déraisonnable dans le processus d'évaluation des emplois, qui était par ailleurs exemplaire.

La requête des employées a donc été rejetée.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding a pay equity plan and jointly requested a consent order from the Tribunal to replace a Review Services Order.

The Tribunal declined to issue the consent order, reiterating its policy that it requires sufficient evidence or an agreed statement of facts to ensure any order complies with the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal noted that written settlements are nonetheless binding under s. 25.1 of the Act and criticized the parties for attempting to impose a deadline on the Tribunal's decision.

The parties reached an agreement regarding a process to resolve outstanding pay equity matters and requested the Tribunal to incorporate their agreement into an order.

The Tribunal ordered the withdrawal of two applications and the adjournment of a third.

Pursuant to section 25(2) of the Pay Equity Act, a Review Officer was assigned to assist the parties in concluding pay equity plans for the SETA and PSSP bargaining units.

The order detailed the job evaluation system to be used, the timeline for preparing and posting the plan, and the information the Review Officer must provide if required to carry out job comparisons or determine pay equity adjustments.

The applicant union sought orders regarding a proposed job evaluation and pay equity plan.

The employer raised a preliminary challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the application was premature because the Review Officer had not yet issued an order or notification under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that there had been insufficient meaningful dialogue at Review Services and that the impasse required for the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction must occur in the context of serious settlement efforts at Review Services.

The application was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to refile.

The Union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to enforce a Memorandum of Agreement requiring the Employer to conclude a Pay Equity Plan based on male comparators in existence as of January 1, 1990.

The Employer argued that new, more appropriate male comparators had come into existence after that date and should be incorporated before the plan was concluded.

The Tribunal ordered the Employer to conclude the plan using the January 1, 1990 comparators, noting that any subsequent changes in the workplace could be addressed through the maintenance obligation after the plan was posted.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal addressed four preliminary matters in a dispute between two employees and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO).

The LCBO's motion to dismiss the employees' main application for failure to provide particulars was denied, though certain allegations were struck for lack of particulars.

The LCBO's motion to dismiss a second application alleging breach of a settlement agreement was granted, as the employees failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal ordered the LCBO to produce relevant documents subject to confidentiality terms.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the employees' allegations of improper conduct by Tribunal counsel and lack of neutrality by the Panel, finding no basis for the concerns.

A group of hospital employees challenged a pay equity plan, alleging it was gender-biased and failed to recognize their job classes as female-dominated.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on grounds of jurisdiction, timeliness, and standing, arguing that a settlement agreement with the union resolved the matter.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction because the union could not settle the employees' individual complaints on their behalf, and found the application was not untimely as the delay did not constitute an abuse of process.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to provide further particulars to determine whether they had established a prima facie case regarding the gender characterization of their job classes.

The City of Brampton applied to settle a pay equity plan under s. 17(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The City sought to amend its application to add issues regarding the documentation and replication of job ratings by the Review Officer.

The Association opposed the amendment and moved to dismiss the remaining issue regarding appropriate male comparators.

The Tribunal declined to allow the amendment, finding it would undermine the efficiency of the proceedings and that the City misconceived the role of the Review Officer and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining issue, finding that all appropriate male comparators had been considered.

The proceeding was terminated.

Various groups of employees sought standing to participate in a hearing regarding the revocation or enforcement of a Review Officer's order directing the employer and union to conclude a pay equity plan.

Prior to the hearing, the employer and union reached a settlement on the pay equity plan.

The Tribunal held that the employee groups did not have standing to seek enforcement of the order or to participate in the revocation hearing independently of their bargaining agent.

As the employee groups and the Pay Equity Office were not parties to the revocation hearing, the settlement between the employer and union was binding and concluded the proceedings.

The request for compensation by the employee groups was denied.

The employer posted a pay equity plan that purported to cover employees in two newly certified bargaining units without negotiating with the union.

The union argued the posting was invalid because it occurred after certification, triggering the employer's obligation to negotiate.

The employer contended the plan was posted prior to certification.

The Tribunal found that the plan was not properly posted in a location accessible to all employees until after the union was certified.

Consequently, the employer violated the Pay Equity Act by unilaterally posting the plan and was ordered to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system and pay equity plan with the union.

The applicant, a former seasonal worker for the City of Peterborough, filed a pay equity complaint under s. 9(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Review Officer found in her favour, and she sought enforcement while the employer sought to quash the order.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing the Review Officer lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not an employee for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the employer's preliminary motion, with written reasons to follow, and directed the Registrar to set dates for the continuation of the hearing.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the proceedings sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request on consent, noting that the matters would be terminated one year after the date of the decision unless brought on for hearing before the expiry of that period.

The Ottawa Board of Education brought applications to quash Review Officer orders directing it to bargain pay equity with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation for three bargaining units.

The Union filed cross-applications alleging the Employer's pay equity plan violated the Pay Equity Act and was no longer appropriate.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the Union's cross-applications because the issues were not adequately canvassed at Review Services.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider substantive matters related to the Review Officer's orders, including whether changed circumstances triggered an obligation to bargain, but declined jurisdiction to review the merits of the Union's proposed comparison system as it had not been discussed at Review Services.

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 Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal heard preliminary motions regarding an application by the City of Brampton challenging a Review Officer's order.

The Association moved to dismiss the application for failure to provide adequate particulars.

The Tribunal struck paragraph 23 of the City's application, finding that the City's allegation that the Review Officer failed to follow a prior agreement between the parties did not disclose a prima facie violation of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that a Review Officer acting under s. 16(2) is not bound by the parties' prior procedural agreements and is not required to survey all male job classes once appropriate comparators are identified.

The Tribunal also ruled that pay equity comparisons should generally be based on data as of the statutory effective date or up to the mandatory posting date.

The employers applied to the Tribunal alleging a change in the identity of the employers under the Pay Equity Act.

The employers argued that the Tribunal should determine who the employer is at different points in time due to changed circumstances, even though no pay equity plan had been posted.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into changed circumstances absent an existing pay equity plan.

The existence of a plan is a precondition to examining whether changed circumstances render the plan no longer appropriate.

In a preliminary ruling to determine the identity of the employer for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal held that the relevant point in time for the inquiry is the effective date of the Act (January 1, 1988).

However, the Tribunal noted it would also hear evidence regarding any changes in the organization up to the mandatory posting date to fashion practical remedies.

The Tribunal declined to hear evidence regarding the identity of the employer at the present time, as that was a separate question.

The parties requested an order from the Tribunal incorporating their agreement with respect to the production and use of sensitive business documents.

The Tribunal declined to order the agreement in its entirety, noting that it could not guarantee absolute confidentiality in light of potential freedom of information requests and its obligation to compile a public record for judicial review.

The Tribunal issued a modified protective order that balanced the parties' desire for confidentiality with the Tribunal's obligation to provide a fair and public hearing.