Geri Sheedy

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order that reinstated the respondent employee and compensated her for lost wages.

The respondent alleged that her hours were reduced and her employment subsequently terminated as a reprisal for receiving pay equity downpayments, contrary to section 9(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that its decisions were not tainted by anti-pay equity animus, given the negative comments and actions of the Executive Director and Board President regarding pay equity.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent reinstated to her full-time position with compensation for lost wages and interest.

The applicant employers sought revocation of a Review Officer Order which found that the Salvation Army was the single employer for all its facilities, corps, and centres for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal reviewed the organizational structure, financial control, human resources management, and program delivery of the Salvation Army and its various centres.

The Tribunal concluded that the Salvation Army Canada and Bermuda, acting through its corporate entity, exercised overall financial responsibility, control over compensation, and supervision of employee relations.

The Review Officer Order was confirmed.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging a denial of natural justice because the original hearing panel failed to provide adequate notice that the parties' agreement on job classes was in jeopardy.

The respondent city opposed the request, arguing that the majority decision demonstrated proper notice was given.

Noting a disagreement between the majority and minority decisions regarding the notice provided, the Tribunal directed the parties to produce excerpts from the original hearing transcripts to assist in determining whether a breach of natural justice occurred.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order finding it had failed to maintain pay equity for non-bargaining unit employees.

The employer argued that any differences in compensation were justified by differences in bargaining strength under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act, that changed circumstances made the plan inappropriate, and that it was misled by a previous Review Officer's letter.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the employer failed to prove the factual basis for the bargaining strength exception, that changed circumstances do not justify a past failure to maintain pay equity, and that the letter did not constitute an officially-induced error.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that Schedule J of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 deprived the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the applications.

Prior to the Tribunal releasing its decision, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) declared Schedule J unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the employers' motion, finding it was not deprived of jurisdiction.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a pre-hearing direction setting out questions for the parties to address at an upcoming hearing regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The jurisdictional challenge arose from amendments to the Pay Equity Act contained in the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996, specifically concerning the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on the impact of the amendments on accrued or accruing rights and provided a list of authorities for the parties to consider.

The Applicant challenged a Review Officer's Order requiring it to include the job class of 'Provider' in its pay equity plan.

In this preliminary decision, the Tribunal determined the dates and location of the hearing, granted party status to two non-complainant Providers, and ruled that the relevant date for determining whether Providers are a job class of employees is January 1, 1988.

The Tribunal also ordered the disclosure of various documents, including tax returns, contracts, and attendance registers.

The applicant City moved to strike out the relief sought by the respondent in her response to the City's application to revoke a Review Officer's order.

The respondent sought to have her positions evaluated at a higher band than ordered by the Review Officer, along with additional compensation.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that a response is not the appropriate pleading to seek independent relief or a variation of the Review Officer's order.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file a separate application if she wished to pursue the additional relief, which would then be consolidated with the City's application.

In an interim decision during a pay equity hearing, the respondents argued that the applicants waived solicitor-client privilege regarding the role of in-house counsel in collective agreement negotiations, based on the counsel's testimony in chief and cross-examination.

The Tribunal ruled that the respondents could ask further questions in the areas already testified to, as privilege may not have attached or was waived by the responses given.

However, the applicants could still claim privilege over actual legal advice given on particular agreements and specific instructions received.

The respondents brought a motion for disclosure of certain documents held in the file of in-house counsel for the Salvation Army Territorial Headquarters.

The Tribunal applied the dominant purpose test to determine whether the documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal found that some documents, such as memoranda raising specific legal issues and a letter from an outside consultant, were privileged.

However, other documents, including job questionnaires and informational charts provided to all members of the Pay Equity Committee, were not privileged and were ordered to be disclosed.

The Tribunal also held that the testimony of in-house counsel regarding his role did not result in an implied waiver of privilege with respect to communications on employment matters.

At the hearing, the respondents sought an order requiring the applicants to disclose certain minutes of the Territorial Finance Council dealing with pay equity and financial matters.

The applicants opposed the disclosure as overly broad and lacking an evidentiary basis.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to provide the requested minutes between January 1988 and December 1993 that deal with pay equity or yearly reviews of internal audits, subject to specific redactions for names of officers, religious roles, and certain institutions.

The applicants sought to withdraw their pay equity complaint against their bargaining agent, OPSEU, and proceed solely against their employer, the Crown.

The Tribunal denied the motion, holding that under section 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act, the bargaining agent is a necessary party to a complaint regarding a pay equity plan that relates to a bargaining unit.

The Tribunal also consolidated another similar complaint into the present application.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act and subsequently sought arbitration under her collective agreement.

She applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal for an adjournment sine die of her complaint pending the arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for an adjournment and ordered the applicant to advise within 30 days whether she intends to withdraw the main application or proceed with the hearing.

In a reconsideration hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, the applicant employees argued the matter should be decided on legal argument alone regarding their standing to challenge a deemed approved pay equity plan under s. 22(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The respondent union and employer argued the complex legal issues should be considered in the context of evidence.

The Tribunal ruled that while a member of a bargaining unit can complain under s. 22(1), the more complex issue of challenging a deemed approved plan is better analyzed in an evidentiary context.

The Tribunal directed that evidence on the merits be heard prior to considering the legal arguments.

The parties reached a written settlement of the matters in dispute regarding a pay equity plan, replacing the plan previously ordered by the Review Officer.

In accordance with section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal noted the settlement was binding and ordered that the agreed-upon pay equity plan be posted in the workplace forthwith.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the applications sine die, noting its understanding that the outstanding issues had been resolved.

The Tribunal indicated that the matters would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing before then.

The Applicants requested an order requiring the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to notify former employees about the posting of a new pay equity plan, which was posted more than five years after the mandatory posting date.

The employer opposed, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order notice beyond workplace posting.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under its general remedial power in s. 25(2)(g) of the Pay Equity Act to order such notice, as workplace posting would be meaningless for former employees.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to notify former employees and extended the posting date to allow them adequate time to review and object.

At the commencement of a pay equity hearing, the applicants and respondent employees requested an interim order requiring the employer to permit them to attend the hearing without loss of pay.

They argued that requiring them to use vacation or unpaid leave created an economic barrier to accessing their rights under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Act to order an employer to fund employee participation at the start of a hearing, prior to any findings of a statutory breach.

During a pay equity hearing, the Tribunal posed a question to the parties regarding the relevance of actual hours worked when determining the 'job rate' for female job classes and male comparators who are all paid an annual salary.

The Tribunal ruled that actual hours worked are irrelevant to the determination of job rate in these circumstances.

Converting an annual salary to an hourly rate based on actual hours worked would introduce an inappropriate element of incumbent performance into the calculation of the rate for the job class.

The Branch Affiliates brought a motion to non-suit the York Region Board of Education at the close of the Board's case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the motion without requiring the Branch Affiliates to be put to their election.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to prepare legal submissions on the relevance of hours worked to the determination of 'job rate' under the Pay Equity Act when the job classes receive an annual salary.