Catherine Bickley

The applicant objected to a Review Officer's order directing the hospital to amend its pay equity plan to include female job classes that performed services for the applicant's clients.

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal considered whether the health care aide positions could be designated as casual under subsections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the work was performed on a regular and continuing basis, and therefore the positions could not be designated as casual.

The matter was relisted to determine whether the applicant or the hospital was the true employer.

The Tribunal convened a conference call to address a disagreement over document production and a request by the applicant and employer to adjourn the proceeding to continue settlement discussions.

An affected party opposed the adjournment because she was excluded from the discussions.

The Tribunal noted that if the applicant withdraws her application following a settlement, the Tribunal will not address generalized pay equity concerns, and the affected party would need to file her own complaint.

The Tribunal found the entire job evaluation manual arguably relevant for production but deferred the production order until January 7, 2003, to allow the principal parties time to finalize their settlement and potentially withdraw the application.

The applicant sought to enforce a Review Officer's pay equity order against Hull-Thomson Limited and Hull-Thomson Inc. At the hearing, Hull-Thomson Inc. brought a motion to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that it was a separate legal entity from Hull-Thomson Limited.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss and denied costs, with reasons to follow.

The applicant requested that a key witness be permitted to provide evidence by affidavit rather than viva voce testimony due to her age, heart condition, and stress.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal denied the request, noting that proceedings are adversarial and require cross-examination to test assertions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide specific medical evidence if it wished to renew the request, and outlined potential alternative methods for adducing the evidence, such as video conferencing or written interrogatories.

The applicant filed an application challenging a Review Officer's refusal to order the employer to implement a specific job evaluation scenario.

An affected party requested disclosure of the job evaluation documents.

The employer resisted, citing a previous privacy ruling.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to produce the documents, finding them relevant to the proceedings and noting its power to compel production supersedes privacy restrictions.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to amend her application to specify the alleged statutory contraventions.

The applicant requested, with the consent of the respondent, that the matter be adjourned sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a party requests it be scheduled for a hearing.

The Tribunal reviewed the Respondent's Response and found it did not conform with Rules 2.02 and 2.03.

The Tribunal directed the Respondent to file and serve a proper Response by July 15, 2002, and directed the Applicant's representative to file a Reply by July 22, 2002.

The hearing scheduled for July 24, 2002, was marked peremptory.

The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) applied to object to a Review Officer's Order, arguing that the Pay Equity Act did not apply to it because it is a federal undertaking.

The Tribunal first ruled that the Pay Equity Office did not have standing to participate as a party, as it lacked a direct and substantial interest in the constitutional applicability of the Act.

Based on an agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal then determined that the ONTC is a federal undertaking, rendering the Pay Equity Act inapplicable to it.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded.

The applicant employer objected to a Review Officer's order, arguing that the Pay Equity Act does not apply to its operations because they are subject to federal legislative authority.

The Tribunal noted that this constitutional issue was not canvassed at Review Services, raising a question about whether the Tribunal could hear the matter before the Review Services process was exhausted.

The Tribunal issued directions requiring the parties and the Pay Equity Office to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the preliminary constitutional issue.

The employer objected to a Review Officer's order requiring it to increase the job rates of female job classes represented by OPSEU to match the rates of male comparator classes represented by CUPE.

The employer argued the difference was justified under the bargaining strength exception in s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

OPSEU brought a preliminary motion to summarily dismiss the employer's application, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the pay equity plan precluded the exception, the application failed to state a prima facie case, and the employer was estopped by its past conduct.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the motion but dismissed it on all grounds.

The Tribunal found the pay equity plan did not govern post-achievement maintenance, the joint bargaining context did not negate a prima facie case, and the employer had not made a clear representation to waive its statutory rights under s. 8(2) that would establish promissory estoppel.

The applicant employer brought a new application regarding a Review Officer's Order, after its first application was dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the new application repeated the same allegations regarding the Review Officer's conduct, which had already been dismissed.

However, the new application also included allegations that the employer had paid out all amounts owing under the pay equity plans.

The Tribunal allowed the application to proceed solely on the issue of whether the pay equity adjustments required in the plans had been paid out, as this was a substantive workplace dispute within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the Deputy Registrar to set early hearing dates.

The Applicant alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with a prior Tribunal order regarding documentary disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the Respondents had complied by providing lists of located documents and specifying which they agreed to produce and which they objected to producing.

The Tribunal directed the Applicant to clearly articulate the basis for her dissatisfaction with the Respondents' refusal to produce certain documents, as required by the prior order.

The employer applied for a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order directing it to make pay equity adjustments.

The employer's application focused entirely on allegations of bias, malice, and improper conduct by the Review Officer and the Pay Equity Office, rather than the substantive merits of the order.

The Pay Equity Office brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal granted the motion, holding that its jurisdiction under the Pay Equity Act is limited to conducting de novo hearings on substantive pay equity disputes, and it has no remedial authority to censure or police the conduct of Review Officers.

The employer applied to review an Order of a Review Officer requiring it to pay pay equity adjustments to a former employee.

The employer argued that a Memorandum of Settlement and Release signed by the employee upon her termination from full-time employment barred her from seeking the adjustments.

The Tribunal found that the release was negotiated solely to address issues related to the termination of her full-time employment and did not specifically address or satisfy obligations under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the Officer's order and directed the employer to pay the outstanding pay equity adjustment of $4,300.27 with interest.