Diane L. Gee

The Civic Association of Non-Union Employees (CANUE) requested an extension of time to file a response and represent employees objecting to the 2005 Pay Equity Plan posted by the employer.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to June 15, 2011, and directed CANUE to provide a list of employees it represents.

The Tribunal also directed the employer to bring the decision to the attention of the employees and noted that the employer is not required to file a response until directed to do so.

The parties previously agreed to adjourn the matter sine die to January 1, 2011.

As neither party requested that the matter be scheduled for a hearing, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a further period of one year, noting that it will be deemed terminated if no request for a hearing is made within that time.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal received an application to set aside a Review Officer's order regarding an amended pay equity plan, as well as numerous objections to the plan from other employees.

The Tribunal directed that all objections be combined into a single file and ordered the applicants to file formal applications within 15 days.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a complaint made to the Pay Equity Commission.

The application did not include a copy of the Review Officer's Order or decision, nor did it explain why the Tribunal should accept the application before the Review Officer concluded their investigation.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the missing documents or an explanation within 10 days, failing which the application would be automatically terminated.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die.

The Tribunal ordered the matter adjourned for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant, Norwood Nursing Home, applied to revoke a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office filed a motion seeking standing to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the Pay Equity Office standing to intervene, finding that its expertise concerning policy, factual, or legal issues would assist the Tribunal.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for a pre-hearing conference.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months.

The Tribunal ordered the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice if no party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant failed to file an Amended Application and a letter from its auditors as directed by a previous Tribunal decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the matter.

The applicant employer sought clarification on whether a schedule detailing employee names and amounts owing, as found by the Review Officer, should be included with the Order when distributed to existing and former employees.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that the schedule must be included with the Order as per its previous direction.

The employer, Three Trilliums Community Place Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking to revoke or vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The orders found the employer to be a seeking employer for the proxy method of comparison and that it failed to implement a pay equity plan.

The employer argues it is not a public sector employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act seeking to revoke or vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The Tribunal issued preliminary directions requiring the employer to post and mail notices of the application to current and former employees, and directing the Pay Equity Office to mail notices to a confidential employee.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party health care group.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The parties filed applications with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The applications were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 25(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The employer filed a response challenging the merits of the Review Officer's Order.

Because the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of an Order on a section 25(5) referral, it deemed the employer's response to be an application under section 25(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the employer to post and mail notices to affected employees.

The Township of McGarry filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to revoke an Order issued by a Review Officer, asserting that no pay equity adjustments were owing to its employees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the non-union employees of the Township, informing them of their right to participate in the proceedings.

The notice outlined the steps and deadlines for employees to file a Response if they wished to be involved in the hearing.

The employer, A.G. Simpson Automotive Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a pay equity plan based on previous determinations and to seek male comparators from bargaining unit positions.

The employer sought approval for a revised pay equity plan that changed the point spread for banding jobs, allowing for non-union male comparators.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate by filing a Response.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to vary two orders issued by a Review Officer regarding the posting of a pay equity plan and the selection of male comparators.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the employer to post and mail notices of the application to all affected current and former employees, and to inform the Tribunal upon compliance.

The employer, A.G. Simpson Automotive Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to vary two Orders issued by a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a pay equity plan using bargaining unit male comparators for non-union female-dominated jobs.

The employer sought approval for an alternative plan that changed the point spread for job banding, allowing for non-union male comparators, which it asserted would result in higher pay equity adjustments.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate in the proceedings.

The Employer appealed a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity liability calculations, arguing the compounding formula used may have been incorrect based on its auditors' advice.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found the application lacked sufficient detail to notify affected employees, as it did not specify the alleged error or the resulting changes to amounts owed.

The Tribunal ordered the Employer to file an Amended Application detailing the formulas and revised amounts, supported by a letter from its auditors, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

The Pay Equity Office requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that set aside a Review Officer's Order against Queensway Nursing Home.

The Tribunal had previously found that it was impossible for Queensway to comply with the Order and that the delay in issuing it amounted to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the Office standing to seek reconsideration because it had declined an earlier invitation to participate in the proceedings.

Alternatively, the Tribunal found that the reconsideration request failed on its merits, as the Office did not establish any errors of law in the original decision.