Diane L. Gee

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 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 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 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 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 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 applicant failed to file written representations as directed by a previous Tribunal decision regarding his claim under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal issued a new direction requiring the applicant to serve and file the representations by February 22, 2012, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

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 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 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 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 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.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal disputing a Review Officer's decision regarding the appropriate comparator position for the female-dominated Office Manager role.

The employer maintained the comparator should be the Senior Carpenter/Lead Hand, while the applicant argued it should be the Project Manager.

The Tribunal directed the employer to confirm service of its correspondence and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a pre-hearing consultation.

The applicant filed an application challenging a Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Commission but failed to file a copy of the decision or a Statement of Service.

The Tribunal initially dismissed the application.

However, after the Commission provided the Tribunal with a copy of the Notice of Decision, the Tribunal revoked its dismissal.

The Tribunal directed that a copy of the application be sent to the responding party and ordered the responding party to file any response within 10 days.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file a copy of the Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Office.

The applicant filed documents relating to proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, but no Notice of Decision from the Pay Equity Office.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that an application can only be filed with the Tribunal if a complaint was first filed with the Pay Equity Commission and a decision was issued.

The applicant requested a further extension of time to file its application because the mediation process had not yet concluded.

The Tribunal granted the extension to December 31, 2011.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal but failed to file a copy of the Notice of Decision or a completed Statement of Service as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file the required documents within 7 days, failing which the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice.

The Union requested that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal proceed with resolving outstanding issues despite proposing mediation to the employer.

The employer opposed the request, arguing the parties had agreed to mediate.

Given the time the applications had been outstanding, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing to determine whether the EPP Operator job class is gender neutral.