Carla Zabek

The applicants, former municipal employees, filed an application asserting that the respondent Township failed to achieve and maintain pay equity.

They challenged the pay equity plan created by a third-party consultant in 2019, alleging bias, unfairness, and improper job evaluations, particularly regarding composite positions and the exclusion of certain male comparators.

The Tribunal found that the employer reasonably exercised its discretion in adopting a gender-neutral comparison system and that the resulting pay equity plan complied with the Pay Equity Act.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

Following the conclusion of the applicants' oral closing arguments at the hearing, the Tribunal issued a procedural direction on consent setting a schedule for the respondent's written closing submissions and the applicants' written reply.

No further hearing dates were scheduled.

During a hearing under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, the applicants requested document production during the cross-examination of the respondent's witness.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to produce the requested documents or have them available electronically at the next hearing date if objecting to their production.

The Tribunal also set deadlines for the applicants to file their documents and scheduled continuation dates for the hearing.

The applicants filed an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

Following opening statements at the hearing, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and reached an agreement.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to execute a settlement document, with a future hearing date retained in the event the settlement is not executed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to maintain pay equity.

Following a 2016 decision directing the parties to negotiate an amendment to their pay equity plan using a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS), the parties failed to reach an agreement after six years.

The Tribunal found that the parties were unable to resolve the issues themselves and directed them to file an application with Review Services to resolve their substantive differences regarding the GNCS.

The matter was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of that application.

The applicant union sought direction from the Tribunal on how to accomplish proxy pay equity maintenance as directed by the Court of Appeal.

The respondent nursing homes disputed that the matter was ready for direction, arguing the applicant had completed steps unilaterally contrary to the terms of reference.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a response addressing the respondent's assertion that the joint process had not been completed.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent nursing homes failed to maintain pay equity under the proxy method.

Following a previous direction to update the Tribunal on their progress, the union submitted that the parties were ready for further direction on accomplishing proxy pay equity maintenance as directed by the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a response to the union's update.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed status updates from the parties regarding the establishment of amended pay equity plans using a gender-neutral comparison system.

Finding that little progress had been made since its January 2020 direction, the Tribunal noted that the internal steps of building the plans must be completed before a 'maintenance by proxy' method can be implemented.

The Tribunal directed the parties to recommence their work forthwith and file a status update by March 31, 2022.

The applicant union sought to have its pay equity application remitted to Review Services rather than having the Tribunal determine the merits de novo.

The Tribunal held that it does not review the process or conduct of a Review Officer and hears matters de novo.

Because the applicant no longer sought a determination on the merits and the underlying application was four years old, the Tribunal dismissed the application without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a fresh application with Review Services.

The responding Participating Nursing Homes requested a stay of proceedings pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding the use of the proxy method of comparison for pay equity maintenance.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to grant a stay at this stage, noting that the immediate next steps in the pay equity process—specifically the development and application of a gender-neutral comparison system (GNCS)—do not require the proxy methodology.

The Tribunal directed the parties to recommence negotiations and implementation of the GNCS, and to refer any substantive impasses to Review Services.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) brought applications under the Pay Equity Act alleging that ten Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) were required to negotiate pay equity maintenance following a restructuring of the CCACs in 2007.

ONA argued that the restructuring constituted a sale of business and a change in circumstances under sections 13.1 and 14.1 of the Act, triggering a duty to bargain.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that while the Act requires employers to maintain pay equity, it does not impose a statutory obligation on employers to negotiate pay equity maintenance with a bargaining agent.

The Tribunal also rejected ONA's argument that a Charter values analysis required interpreting the Act to mandate such bargaining, concluding that the absence of a duty to bargain maintenance does not disproportionately limit freedom of association.

The applicant requested an amendment to the timeframe for written submissions.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, ordering the parties to provide their submissions in chief by June 28, 2019, and reply submissions by July 8, 2019.

Following the conclusion of the oral hearing regarding the maintenance of pay equity plans under the proxy methodology, the Divisional Court issued two decisions concerning Charter values and the Pay Equity Act.

As the parties had no opportunity to address these decisions during the hearing, the Tribunal issued a direction inviting the parties to make written submissions on the implications of the Divisional Court's decisions.

The applicant union appealed a Review Officer's Order that directed the parties to complete a new pay equity agreement.

Following the union's certification, the parties had entered into a Letter of Understanding to review the existing 1990 pay equity plan.

They reached an impasse on the method of comparison and the determination of job rates.

The Tribunal found that the Letter of Understanding went beyond the strict requirements of the Pay Equity Act, which only required splitting the existing plan upon certification.

Because the parties were not statutorily required to negotiate a new plan, the Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's Order and declared the employer's unilaterally posted amended plan invalid.

The applicant unions alleged that the responding nursing homes failed to maintain pay equity under the Pay Equity Act.

The applications had been adjourned sine die following a 2016 merits decision, which is currently the subject of judicial review applications scheduled for February 2019.

The workplace parties requested the matters be relisted for hearing.

The Tribunal declined the request, adjourning the applications pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings.

The applicant unions alleged that the responding nursing homes failed to maintain pay equity under their proxy plans.

In a prior decision, the Tribunal directed the parties to negotiate an amendment to their plans and adjourned the matter sine die.

The parties reached an impasse and requested the Tribunal to adjudicate the substantive issues.

The Tribunal held that it lacks originating jurisdiction over the substantive provisions of a proxy plan, which must first be addressed through the statutory Review Services process.

Given the pending judicial review applications and the lack of a Review Officer's order, the Tribunal indicated its intention to terminate the proceedings.

The Pay Equity Office referred an order to the Tribunal after the employer failed to comply.

The Tribunal previously directed the employer to pay the monetary adjustments owed to affected employees.

The employer subsequently sent a letter seeking to appeal the order and extend the time for payment, effectively requesting a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant reconsideration, as the employer had been provided ample opportunity to respond but ignored the matter.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging various violations by the employer regarding its proxy pay equity plan.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the allegations did not disclose a prima facie violation of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory answer to the employer's objections and that the allegations, including complaints about the selection of key female job classes and the failure to object to the plan within the statutory timeframe, did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The Tribunal declined to inquire into these allegations and directed the remaining issues to a pre-hearing conference.

The applicant brought two applications under the Pay Equity Act regarding unionized and non-union employees.

On the scheduled hearing dates, the parties entered into written settlements of their disputes pursuant to section 25.1 of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the proceedings.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) and the respondent Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on the merits of their Pay Equity Act applications.

The adjournment was sought because the CCACs were soon to be replaced by Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) under the Patients First Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, cancelling the April 2017 hearing dates and directing the Registrar to schedule new dates in September 2017 to allow the LHINs to participate and explore settlement.