Carol Phillips

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 applicant hospital sought to validate its unilateral completion of a pay equity plan after negotiations with the respondent union reached an impasse.

The parties had signed Terms of Reference in 2006 to negotiate a new plan following an amalgamation.

The Tribunal held that the hospital was statutorily required under the Pay Equity Act to negotiate the plan with the bargaining agent and could not unilaterally implement it.

Finding that the parties' relationship was dysfunctional and further negotiations would be fruitless, the Tribunal ordered a Review Officer to prepare the pay equity plan pursuant to section 25(2)(a) of the Act.

The applicants, employed in human resources job classes, alleged that their positions were not evaluated in accordance with the Pay Equity Act by the respondent City.

After directing the parties to prepare job descriptions and re-evaluate the positions, the Tribunal found that the City's job descriptions reasonably captured the relevant job duties.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Tribunal concluded that the City's evaluations of the Manager of Compensation and Senior Compensation Consultant roles were reasonable and complied with the Act.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant requested to adjourn the proceeding indefinitely pending the Tribunal's direction on pay equity maintenance using proxy comparators in other files.

The union opposed the delay.

The Tribunal agreed with the union, dismissing the adjournment request, as there was no timeline for the other files.

Recognizing the broad implications of the issue, the Tribunal directed that a Notice to the Community be posted to allow interested persons or organizations to seek intervenor status to make submissions on the procedure for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

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.

The applicants and respondent requested a conference call to discuss whether final submissions should be in writing or oral.

The Tribunal noted that an agreement had already been reached and directed that final submissions be in writing.

The Tribunal declined to convene a conference call to decide a procedural issue that had already been agreed to and directed, unless the parties had a consensual proposal to amend the process.

The applicants requested to have their final argument done by written submissions, which the Tribunal accepted.

Due to unspecified reasons, the applicants were unable to file their submissions in accordance with the original timetable.

The Tribunal issued a decision establishing a new schedule for the filing of written submissions.

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 applicants requested an extension of timelines for filing witness statements.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadlines for the applicants to file their witness statements to September 16, 2022, and for the respondent to file its responding witness statements to October 7, 2022.

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 Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions following the first day of hearing for applications under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicants completed their evidence on the first issue.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consult and provide mutually available dates for the next hearing, and ordered the respondent to file witness statements by a specified date.

The applicants in a pay equity dispute requested the production of rating notes for non-union jobs and initial ratings prepared by a consultant, arguing they were relevant to whether the jobs were evaluated in isolation.

The respondent objected, claiming the request was irrelevant, a fishing expedition, and overly broad.

The Tribunal found the documents were arguably relevant to the process of how job classes were rated.

However, the Tribunal agreed the request was overly broad and limited production to documents pertaining to job classes placed in bands 7, 8, and 9, which were the bands at issue.

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.