Diane L. Gee

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal received a request to schedule a two-day hearing regarding an outstanding issue concerning the gender of a job class.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the applicant and respondent to file statements of issues, facts, witness lists, and documents within specified timelines.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule the hearing.

The applicant municipality applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's order that invalidated its 2006 amended pay equity plan.

The Review Officer had concluded that the municipality improperly split female job classes and compared them to lower-paid male comparators, thereby failing to maintain pay equity.

The Tribunal reviewed the job evaluations and found that the municipality's assessment of the positions, including the male comparator job class, was reasonable.

The Tribunal also found that the municipality did not contravene the Pay Equity Act by selecting different male comparators for different female job classes within the same band.

The Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's order and upheld the 2006 pay equity plan.

The Employer filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's Order requiring it to prepare and post a proxy pay equity plan.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to provide written notice of the application to all affected past and present employees, as they may be affected by the outcome and have a right to participate.

The applicant nursing home sought to set aside a Review Officer's Order which found its 1995 pay equity plan invalid and directed it to prepare a new plan with retroactive adjustments to 1994.

The anonymous complaint leading to the Order was filed in 2003, eight years after the plan was posted, and the Order was not issued until 2008.

The Tribunal found that the extensive delay made it impossible for the employer to comply with the Order due to the loss of historical records.

Furthermore, the delay compromised the employer's ability to have a fair hearing and amounted to an abuse of process.

The Review Officer's Order was revoked.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1328, sought to withdraw its application against the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicants, employed as Clerk 2s in the Records Search Unit, filed an application alleging their job class was incorrectly valued compared to the Clerk 1 job class.

The respondent union requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to plead material facts demonstrating that the employer and union acted unreasonably in evaluating the job classes, noting that the Act does not require wage parity between different employers or identical valuation for positions with different duties.

The application was dismissed.

The parties requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for March 18, 2010.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die to a date no later than October 1, 2010.

The Municipality of Wawa applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's order that invalidated its 2006 amended pay equity plan.

The Tribunal heard partial evidence regarding whether changed circumstances justified the 2006 plan and whether the new plan detrimentally impacted employees.

Finding it lacked sufficient evidence to determine the potential detrimental impacts and the proper valuation of a specific job class, the Tribunal directed the Municipality to produce complete job descriptions and evaluation documents and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule further hearing dates.

The Employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's Order finding its 1995 Pay Equity Plan non-compliant.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to provide notice of the application to affected past and present employees by posting and mailing a Notice of Application, pursuant to s. 29(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office was also directed to mail the application and notice to the confidential employee.

The applicant applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to vary a Review Officer's order that classified the single-incumbent job class of Executive Director as gender neutral.

The Tribunal found that while historical incumbency at the agency was male-dominated or neutral, sector-wide statistics from 1994 showed that 66% of Executive Directors at United Way funded agencies were women.

Giving weight to gender stereotyping in the field of work, the Tribunal varied the order to classify the position as a female-dominated job class.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates to continue settlement discussions.

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

The employer and union disputed whether Electronic Pre-Press (EPP) operator positions constituted a single 'job class' under the Pay Equity Act.

Some operators received a negotiated wage rate, while others received higher 'gold-circled' rates protected from previous positions after a technological restructuring.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'job class' applies to determine if a single position constitutes multiple job classes.

Because the gold-circled employees had a different compensation schedule and range of salary rates than those earning the negotiated rate, the Tribunal concluded that the EPP operator positions did not constitute a single job class.

The applicant purchased the business and assets of the predecessor corporation after the respondent employee was terminated.

A Review Officer previously found the termination was tainted by anti-pay equity animus and ordered damages against the business.

The applicant sought to vary the order to name the predecessor corporation, as the applicant never employed the respondent.

With the agreement of the respondent employee and no submissions from the predecessor corporation, the Tribunal varied the order to name the predecessor corporation and clarified it was not made against the applicant.

The parties requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 22, 2009, to gather evidence.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die until December 31, 2009.

The Tribunal ordered the adjournment on consent, noting that if no party requests to proceed by that date, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The Employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's Order that found its 1995 Pay Equity Plan non-compliant.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to provide written notice of the application to all affected past and present employees by posting the notice in the workplace and mailing it to former employees, pursuant to section 29(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The parties advised the Tribunal they were working on an agreed statement of facts but failed to provide it.

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

The applicant, Comfort Inn Motel, failed to provide reasons as to why its application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act should not be terminated for abandonment, as directed by a previous Tribunal decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the application.

A related referral by the Pay Equity Office under section 24(5) of the Act was directed to be scheduled for a pre-hearing consultation.

The applicant employer sought to stay or set aside an order of a review officer requiring it to make pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that it lacked government funding, that the union was estopped from claiming payments due to a prior settlement with the government, that the union's complaint was vexatious, and that a 29-month delay in the investigation warranted a stay.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to make out a prima facie case, finding that lack of funding does not relieve an employer of its statutory obligations, the elements of estoppel were not met, the complaint was not vexatious, and the delay did not cause prejudice.

The applicant union filed an application alleging the employer failed to maintain pay equity.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the union had not first lodged a complaint with Review Services of the Pay Equity Commission.

The Tribunal agreed, holding that under the Pay Equity Act and established jurisprudence, it does not have jurisdiction over an application until a Review Officer has investigated and attempted to settle it.

The application was dismissed as premature.