Diane L. Gee

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to vary a Review Officer's Order regarding the job evaluation rating for the Nursing Attendant/PCA classification.

The Review Officer had rated the job-related experience factor at 2.

The employer argued it should be rated 1, as the position requires less than six months of job-related experience to perform satisfactorily, given the one-year college program and clinical placements required for the role.

The Tribunal agreed with the employer, finding that the educational requirements largely prepare individuals for the job and that less than six months of on-the-job experience is needed to perform effectively.

The Tribunal varied the Order to rate the job-related experience factor at 1.

The applicant, Farm Fresh Poultry Co-Op Inc., filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to post and mail a Notice of Application to Employees and to confirm compliance in writing.

Having received no confirmation, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise in writing by August 8, 2013, whether it complied with the directions, failing which the application would be automatically terminated.

The applicant filed an application pursuant to section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to post a Notice of Application to Employees, the Review Officer's Order, and the Application in prominent workplace locations.

The applicant was also directed to mail the Notice to former employees who worked in a female-dominated job class after January 1, 1994.

The Tribunal ordered that failure to comply with these directions by the specified deadline would result in the automatic termination of the matter.

The applicant filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the applicant to post a Notice of Application to Employees in the workplace and mail it to former employees who worked in a female-dominated job class after January 1, 2000.

The applicants previously withdrew their applications objecting to a Review Officer's Order and the responding party's 2005 Pay Equity Plan.

Following the withdrawal, the responding party requested confirmation from the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal that the Pay Equity Plan posted on January 19, 2011, is considered deemed approved.

The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to answer the question, as the issue of whether the plan was deemed approved was not before it, and directed the responding party to sections 16 and 17 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office requested standing to intervene in the matter.

The applicant did not object.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the Pay Equity Office standing to intervene.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued case management directions in a dispute between the applicant union and the responding school board.

The Tribunal directed the scheduling of three hearing dates and established a timeline for the responding party to pursue a timeliness objection.

The Tribunal further ordered that the hearing on the merits be bifurcated to first determine whether the parties are locked into the PDQ date for calculating retroactive pay equity adjustments, and set deadlines for the exchange of documents and witness statements.

The applicant and the responding party reached a settlement agreement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal cancelled the scheduled hearing dates and terminated the matter.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal alleging unpaid wages, unpaid vacation pay, failure to provide a T4, and workplace hostility under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal summarily dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine complaints under the Employment Standards Act, as its jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant filed an application alleging that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for exercising rights under the Pay Equity Act, and that his female job class was equal in value to a male job class.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written representations detailing the facts supporting his allegations.

The applicant failed to provide particulars of any instance where he exercised rights under the Act prior to termination, or any facts supporting the equal value of the job classes.

The Tribunal dismissed the application without a hearing on the basis that, even assuming all stated facts to be true, the application did not allege facts that would establish a violation of the Act.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing consultation before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The applicant had been previously warned that failure to attend would result in the dismissal of the application.

As the applicant did not appear or contact the Tribunal, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act alleging he was terminated for exercising his rights under the Act and that his job class of Research Assistant I should be compared to the male job class of Research Scientist/Senior Scientist.

The Tribunal found that the applicant misunderstood the nature of pay equity, which compares job classes rather than individuals.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions as to why his application should not be dismissed for failing to set out facts that would establish a violation of the Act.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the matter pending the outcome of a related file (PEHT File No. 1507-11-PE).

The responding party consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent.

The applicant employer sought to vary a Review Officer's Order requiring it to pay outstanding pay equity retroactivity amounts within 90 days, arguing it lacked the financial resources to pay immediately.

The Tribunal referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing and adjourned a related file pending the outcome.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they entered into a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal revoked a previous decision inadvertently adjourning the matter sine die, cancelled the scheduled hearing, and terminated the proceedings.

The parties requested a pre-hearing consultation and subsequently adjourned it.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months, after which it will be deemed terminated unless a party requests to proceed.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they were engaged in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding three months, after which it would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed.

The Pay Equity Commission applied to the Tribunal to determine whether the responding parties complied with a Review Officer's order.

The responding parties failed to file a response and requested an oral hearing.

The Tribunal found that the only issue was compliance with the order, which was not disputed.

The Tribunal declined to hold an oral hearing, confirmed non-compliance, and ordered the responding parties to pay $52,080.95 in outstanding pay equity adjustments to the affected employees.

The Pay Equity Commission applied to the Tribunal regarding the responding parties' non-compliance with a Review Officer's order.

The Tribunal previously directed a written hearing.

The current owner of one of the responding parties requested an oral hearing to discuss liability among the various owners over a 12-year period.

The Tribunal noted that under section 24 of the Pay Equity Act, the only issue is whether the order was complied with, and since non-compliance was apparent, there was no reason for an oral hearing.

The Tribunal offered to schedule a pre-hearing conference if the Pay Equity Office deemed it helpful.

The Pay Equity Commission brought an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's orders to pay specified amounts to employees.

The employer did not file a response.

The Tribunal determined to proceed by written hearing and directed the employer to file written submissions establishing compliance, noting that the employer bears the onus of proof under section 24(5.3) of the Act.