Charles Taccone

The Applicants requested an order requiring the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to notify former employees about the posting of a new pay equity plan, which was posted more than five years after the mandatory posting date.

The employer opposed, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order notice beyond workplace posting.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under its general remedial power in s. 25(2)(g) of the Pay Equity Act to order such notice, as workplace posting would be meaningless for former employees.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to notify former employees and extended the posting date to allow them adequate time to review and object.

At the commencement of a pay equity hearing, the applicants and respondent employees requested an interim order requiring the employer to permit them to attend the hearing without loss of pay.

They argued that requiring them to use vacation or unpaid leave created an economic barrier to accessing their rights under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Act to order an employer to fund employee participation at the start of a hearing, prior to any findings of a statutory breach.

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.

During a pay equity hearing, the Tribunal posed a question to the parties regarding the relevance of actual hours worked when determining the 'job rate' for female job classes and male comparators who are all paid an annual salary.

The Tribunal ruled that actual hours worked are irrelevant to the determination of job rate in these circumstances.

Converting an annual salary to an hourly rate based on actual hours worked would introduce an inappropriate element of incumbent performance into the calculation of the rate for the job class.

The Branch Affiliates brought a motion to non-suit the York Region Board of Education at the close of the Board's case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the motion without requiring the Branch Affiliates to be put to their election.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to prepare legal submissions on the relevance of hours worked to the determination of 'job rate' under the Pay Equity Act when the job classes receive an annual salary.

The Tribunal heard a preliminary objection by the Crown regarding its jurisdiction to enforce Review Officer Orders declaring the Crown as the employer for pay equity purposes.

The Crown argued that recent amendments to the Pay Equity Act, specifically section 1.1, invalidated the Orders.

The Union argued for a broad interpretation of the exceptions in section 1.1(4)(b) due to an agreement to hold applications in abeyance.

The Tribunal found the statutory language clear and unambiguous, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Orders, subject to pending Charter arguments.

The matters were adjourned sine die.

A group of unionized nursing employees filed a complaint alleging that the pay equity plan negotiated between their union and the employer contravened the Pay Equity Act by failing to accurately capture and value their job content.

The employer and union raised a preliminary objection that individual unionized employees lack standing to challenge a deemed approved plan.

The majority of the Tribunal held that while employees lack standing to complain under sections 12 and 14, which confer rights exclusively on the bargaining agent, they do have standing under section 7 to allege that the compensation practices fail to provide for pay equity.

However, applying a high threshold of review, the majority found that the application did not disclose an unreasonable exclusion of job information and dismissed the complaint.

The Vice-Chair dissented, arguing for a lower prima facie threshold.

The Union alleged that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith during pay equity negotiations and brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Employer's application regarding a Review Officer's order on gender dominance.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the Employer's application for delay or abuse of process, finding that meaningful bargaining had occurred.

However, the Tribunal found that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith by continuing to negotiate as if it accepted the Review Officer's first order while secretly intending to appeal it, thereby misleading the Union.

The Tribunal reserved on the quantum of compensation for wasted time and expense in evaluating job classes.

The employer applied to the Tribunal seeking a prospective interpretation of the red-circling provisions under s. 8(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the employer had not made out a prima facie case and that the matter was not ripe for adjudication.

The Tribunal agreed with the union, finding that the application was premature because a sufficient factual basis was required to determine if the statutory requirements for red-circling were met.

The Tribunal declined to render a decision in the abstract.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement on an amended pay equity plan and jointly requested that the Tribunal revoke the Order.

The Tribunal declined to issue the consent order, noting that the Memorandum of Settlement did not disclose the basis for certain conclusions regarding job rates, gender predominance, and comparability of job classes.

The Tribunal requested that the parties provide specific information in writing or schedule a hearing day before it would consider revoking the Order.