Diane Rose

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 18, 2009.

The reference to an Order dated January 7, 2009, was amended to refer to the Order dated July 21, 2006.

The Pay Equity Office brought an application to enforce a review officer's order requiring the employer to post a pay equity plan and make retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The employer failed to respond to the application or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the employer had breached its undertakings and failed to comply with the order.

The Tribunal confirmed the review officer's order and directed the employer to post the plan and commence retroactive payments, noting that the order could be filed with the Superior Court of Justice for enforcement.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding the employer's failure to comply with a review officer's order to post and implement a pay equity plan and pay adjustments.

The employer admitted non-compliance, citing a lack of funding.

The Tribunal found that an inability to fund pay equity is not a lawful excuse for failing to implement it.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to post the plan, calculate adjustments, and pay the required amounts with interest.

The Tribunal issued a decision revoking a Review Officer's Order pursuant to sections 23(3) and 25(2)(d) of the Pay Equity Act.

This revocation was made in accordance with a Divisional Court decision that granted the employer's application for judicial review of the Tribunal's previous decisions.

Leave to appeal the Divisional Court's decision had been denied by the Court of Appeal.

The Employer sought to adjourn two applications sine die pending additional information regarding a government settlement that might resolve the matters.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted a short adjournment to July 5, 2004, rather than sine die, noting that the applications had been outstanding for a significant time and that pay equity was not being implemented in the workplace while the applications were pending.

The Pay Equity Office brought an application alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan using the proxy method.

The employer did not respond or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the employer in non-compliance and ordered it to prepare and post the plan, and to make required retroactive adjustments.

The Tribunal declined the Office's request to add an order for interest, noting that a compliance referral is not the appropriate forum to vary the original order's remedies, and the employer had no notice of the claim for interest.

The Applicant employer brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear a pay equity complaint on the basis that the Respondents were former employees when they filed the complaint.

The Applicant also sought a determination that the Respondents should present their case first and bear the onus of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant voluntarily requested a hearing under subsection 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal further held that the Respondents' statutory rights under the Act survived the termination of their employment.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that the Applicant must proceed first and bears the onus of proof, as it is the party challenging the Review Officer's order.

The Applicant opposed the Tribunal's decision to deal with two preliminary issues by written hearing, arguing that the issues were jurisdictional and required an oral hearing under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal held that the issues—whether the respondents were employees when they filed their complaint and the order of proceedings—were procedural in nature.

Finding no good reason to hold an oral hearing, the Tribunal directed that the preliminary issues be dealt with by written submissions.

The Applicant brought an application concerning a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity for the Pool Deck Supervisor job class.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to pursue a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be terminated if not brought back for a hearing within one year.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to comply with the Pay Equity Act.

The employer argued that the employee who initiated the complaint had signed a full and final release upon her termination, which barred any further claims arising from her employment.

The Tribunal found that the release did not specifically mention the Pay Equity Act, and therefore did not preclude the pay equity complaint.

Furthermore, the Review Officer's Order was not personal to the employee but required the employer to establish general compliance with its statutory pay equity obligations.

The application was dismissed and the employer was ordered to perform job comparisons and pay any required adjustments.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to resume paying pay equity adjustments and make retroactive payments.

The employer did not file a response to the referral.

The Tribunal found the Office's assertion unchallenged and ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's order.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Public Service Staff Union brought a joint application seeking a declaration that their Minutes of Settlement regarding an amended pay equity plan constituted a binding settlement under section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the three requirements from Scarborough No. 2 were met: there was a matter requiring a hearing, a settlement was reached, and it was reduced to writing.

The Tribunal granted the declaration, confirming the settlement is enforceable.

The applicant requested, with the consent of the respondent, that the matter be adjourned sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a party requests it be scheduled for a hearing.