Charles Taccone

The parties requested an adjournment sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed without further notice after one year unless a party requested it be rescheduled.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order that reinstated the respondent employee and compensated her for lost wages.

The respondent alleged that her hours were reduced and her employment subsequently terminated as a reprisal for receiving pay equity downpayments, contrary to section 9(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that its decisions were not tainted by anti-pay equity animus, given the negative comments and actions of the Executive Director and Board President regarding pay equity.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent reinstated to her full-time position with compensation for lost wages and interest.

The applicant employers sought revocation of a Review Officer Order which found that the Salvation Army was the single employer for all its facilities, corps, and centres for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal reviewed the organizational structure, financial control, human resources management, and program delivery of the Salvation Army and its various centres.

The Tribunal concluded that the Salvation Army Canada and Bermuda, acting through its corporate entity, exercised overall financial responsibility, control over compensation, and supervision of employee relations.

The Review Officer Order was confirmed.

The Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board brought a motion to dismiss the pay equity applications of two employees in the Planner 1 job class, arguing the position was gender neutral.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed historical incumbency and gender stereotypes of the field of work.

Finding that the Planner 1 job had one male and one female incumbent during the relevant statutory period and did not involve traditionally female stereotypical work, the Tribunal concluded the job class was gender neutral.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the rating of the jobs, and the Board's motion to dismiss the applications was granted.

The applicants filed multiple applications before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal against their union and employer.

Following a letter from the lead applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

A related application between the union and the employer remained adjourned sine die.

A group of Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) filed a re-Application challenging a deemed approved pay equity plan negotiated by their union and the hospital.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the re-Application.

The Tribunal found that the RPNs failed to meet their pleading obligations by not detailing allegations that the plan failed to comply with the minimum standards of Part 1 of the Pay Equity Act.

Concluding that the applicants had a fundamental misunderstanding of the Act and that there was no prima facie case to meet, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the re-Application.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that Schedule J of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 deprived the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the applications.

Prior to the Tribunal releasing its decision, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) declared Schedule J unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the employers' motion, finding it was not deprived of jurisdiction.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a pre-hearing direction setting out questions for the parties to address at an upcoming hearing regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The jurisdictional challenge arose from amendments to the Pay Equity Act contained in the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996, specifically concerning the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on the impact of the amendments on accrued or accruing rights and provided a list of authorities for the parties to consider.

In a pre-hearing conference regarding pay equity complaints, the Tribunal clarified that the adequacy of the design of the employer's job evaluation system was not subject to review, but rather its application to the job content.

The Tribunal also ordered the employer to disclose individual committee members' evaluation notes, finding them arguably relevant since the employer intended to lead oral evidence to explain how certain job content was rated.

The Tribunal provided directions on the procedure for calling expert witnesses.

The union and the employer filed applications regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning their pay equity plan.

The parties had negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement in 1990 which they intended to serve as a pay equity plan.

The Tribunal found that the agreement failed to comply with the Pay Equity Act in several fundamental ways, including failing to consider benefits in job rates, failing to directly compare female to male job classes, and using pay equity adjustments for both male and female job classes to achieve internal equity.

The Tribunal concluded that no valid pay equity plan existed and ordered the parties to negotiate a new plan in compliance with the Act.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation brought a motion for disclosure of information from the Ottawa Board of Education regarding job rates and benefits in pay equity plans.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal ordered the Board to disclose the itemization of benefits, the formulas used for determining salary and benefits portions of the job rate, and the methodology for converting benefits to a common denominator.

The Tribunal found the remainder of the disclosure request premature pending the filing of amended pleadings.

The parties reached a written settlement of all pay equity matters pursuant to s. 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The employer objected to the union's request to dismiss the employer's reconsideration application, and both parties suggested ways for the Tribunal to endorse the record to reinforce the settlement's finality.

The Tribunal declined to issue any order, finding that the settlement was binding and subsumed the reconsideration request, making any further order unnecessary.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) became the bargaining agent for two units of the Ottawa Board of Education and sought to negotiate new pay equity plans, arguing that certification constituted a changed circumstance and that the existing plans contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that for the unit previously covered by a non-union plan, certification was a changed circumstance requiring the plan to be split, but for the unit that already had a union plan, a mere change in bargaining agent was not.

The Tribunal further held that an allegation of a contravention does not automatically trigger a duty to negotiate; a contravention must first be proven under the Act.

In an interim decision during a pay equity hearing, the respondents argued that the applicants waived solicitor-client privilege regarding the role of in-house counsel in collective agreement negotiations, based on the counsel's testimony in chief and cross-examination.

The Tribunal ruled that the respondents could ask further questions in the areas already testified to, as privilege may not have attached or was waived by the responses given.

However, the applicants could still claim privilege over actual legal advice given on particular agreements and specific instructions received.

The respondents brought a motion for disclosure of certain documents held in the file of in-house counsel for the Salvation Army Territorial Headquarters.

The Tribunal applied the dominant purpose test to determine whether the documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal found that some documents, such as memoranda raising specific legal issues and a letter from an outside consultant, were privileged.

However, other documents, including job questionnaires and informational charts provided to all members of the Pay Equity Committee, were not privileged and were ordered to be disclosed.

The Tribunal also held that the testimony of in-house counsel regarding his role did not result in an implied waiver of privilege with respect to communications on employment matters.

At the hearing, the respondents sought an order requiring the applicants to disclose certain minutes of the Territorial Finance Council dealing with pay equity and financial matters.

The applicants opposed the disclosure as overly broad and lacking an evidentiary basis.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to provide the requested minutes between January 1988 and December 1993 that deal with pay equity or yearly reviews of internal audits, subject to specific redactions for names of officers, religious roles, and certain institutions.

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 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 parties reached a written settlement of the matters in dispute regarding a pay equity plan, replacing the plan previously ordered by the Review Officer.

In accordance with section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal noted the settlement was binding and ordered that the agreed-upon pay equity plan be posted in the workplace forthwith.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the applications sine die, noting its understanding that the outstanding issues had been resolved.

The Tribunal indicated that the matters would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing before then.