Geri Sheedy

The Brampton Public Library Board brought a motion requesting the Tribunal's consent under section 31 of the Pay Equity Act to compel a Review Officer to testify.

The Board argued that the Review Officer's testimony was necessary to establish a defence of 'officially induced error' regarding its failure to maintain pay equity.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Review Officer's order was directed solely to the question of maintenance, not the proxy comparison method agreement.

The Tribunal concluded that the extraordinary circumstances required to pierce the confidentiality of the Review Services process were absent.

The Tribunal heard a preliminary objection by the Crown regarding its jurisdiction to enforce Review Officer Orders declaring the Crown as the employer for pay equity purposes.

The Crown argued that recent amendments to the Pay Equity Act, specifically section 1.1, invalidated the Orders.

The Union argued for a broad interpretation of the exceptions in section 1.1(4)(b) due to an agreement to hold applications in abeyance.

The Tribunal found the statutory language clear and unambiguous, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Orders, subject to pending Charter arguments.

The matters were adjourned sine die.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied to the Tribunal requesting an order that the Brant County Health Unit direct more than one percent of its annual payroll towards pay equity adjustments to accelerate the closing of a large wage gap.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that under section 13 of the Pay Equity Act, it has no discretion to order an employer to spend more than one percent of its payroll per year on pay equity adjustments, except in specific circumstances not present in this case.

The Tribunal directed the employer to post the amended pay equity plan and make adjustments in accordance with the statutory framework.

The applicant employer brought a preliminary motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the unexplained resignation of an employer representative in another case suggested a lack of adjudicative independence at the Tribunal.

The majority of the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were too attenuated and remote to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's history demonstrated independent decision-making.

The dissenting member would have found a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the institutional setting and the lack of explanation for the member's resignation.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision and sought remedies for the Employer's failure to comply with an order to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The Employer admitted non-compliance, citing financial constraints.

The Tribunal varied its original order, finding that the Employer's failure to bargain made the previous remedy inappropriate.

The Tribunal directed a review officer to prepare the pay equity plan, starting with the Union's proposed comparison system.

The Tribunal also ordered the Employer to pay compensatory damages, including the costs of pre-testing the system and the review officer's costs in preparing the plan, but declined to state a case for contempt or award legal costs.

One member dissented on the extent of the compensatory damages.

The applicants filed objections to a review officer's order regarding the employer's pay equity plan, alleging undervaluation of their work and flawed comparison systems.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicants had established a prima facie case in their pleadings.

The majority held that the pleadings, though sparse, went beyond bald allegations and established a prima facie case, noting that non-union applicants have limited access to information about their employer's pay equity plan.

The Tribunal granted leave to provide further particulars and directed a second pre-hearing conference.

The Alternate Chair dissented, finding that the applications failed to plead material facts demonstrating how the evaluations were inappropriate.

The employer and the union engaged in pay equity negotiations and signed a memorandum of settlement.

The employer later claimed that the agreement was subject to ratification by the Board of Commissioners of Police, which did not approve it.

A Review Officer subsequently ordered the employer to post a pay equity plan.

The employer applied to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act does not require ratification of a pay equity plan.

Because the employer did not clearly communicate that its negotiating committee lacked the authority to bind the Board or that the agreement was subject to ratification, the memorandum of settlement constituted a binding agreement.

The Review Officer's order was revoked.

The applicant City requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order directing the parties to complete and implement a pay equity plan.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to dismiss an application without a hearing on the merits if the written material fails to disclose a case that the Tribunal can remedy.

Finding that the City's application merely expressed general dissatisfaction with the job comparison system without alleging facts that would constitute a violation of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Applicant union requested a hearing to review an Order of a Review Officer which found the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board to be the employer of the library staff for pay equity purposes.

The union argued that the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was the true employer.

Applying the four criteria from Haldimand-Norfolk (No.3), the Tribunal found that the Municipality exercises substantial control over the Library Board's budget, heavily influences compensation practices, and that public library services are a core, integral activity of the Municipality.

The Tribunal concluded that the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is the employer of the library workers for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, and revoked the Review Officer's Order.

During a hearing regarding the employer's alleged failure to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system and pay equity plan, William M. Mercer Limited applied for intervenor status.

Mercer sought to protect its commercial interests, arguing that allegations of gender bias in its job evaluation methodology could negatively affect its business.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Mercer was not a party under section 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, and had only a commercial and incidental interest rather than a direct legal interest in the proceedings.

Granting intervenor status would unnecessarily lengthen and complicate the hearing.

The Applicant union sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from Dr. Pat Armstrong on women's work and gender bias in a pay equity dispute.

The Respondent employer objected to the witness's qualifications and the relevance of the proposed evidence.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal qualified Dr. Armstrong as an expert in the nature of women's work in the health care sector and critiquing methodologies.

However, the Tribunal limited the scope of her testimony to evaluating the specific methodology proposed by the Respondent and its potential gender effects, excluding general commentary on the Mercer comparison system or the parties' bargaining history.

The Ontario Nurses Association brought an application alleging the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk violated the Pay Equity Act, 1987.

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal had to determine whether the Regional Municipality was the employer of the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police, such that the police force would be included in the Municipality's establishment for pay equity comparisons.

The Tribunal developed a four-part test to determine the employer for pay equity purposes, focusing on overall financial responsibility, responsibility for compensation practices, the nature of the service, and consistency with the Act's purpose.

Applying this test, the majority found that the Regional Municipality was the employer of the police force, as it bore the ultimate financial burden and responsibility for policing as a municipal function.

The police force was therefore part of the Municipality's establishment.

The Applicant union moved to stay a Review Services order and to strike portions of the Respondent's Response.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to stay, finding no statutory basis to stay a review officer's order when no enforcement was sought and the issues were already before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal granted the motion to strike portions of the Response that contained new allegations of bad faith bargaining not raised during the Review Services process, while allowing the Respondent to amend its remedy to seek confirmation of the review officer's order.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the respondent municipality contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The respondent and the Board of Commissioners of Police challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the complaint, arguing the review officer had not declared an inability to effect a settlement.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under both s. 25(1)(a) and s. 25(1)(b) of the Act, finding that a reasonable opportunity for settlement had occurred and that an order had been issued entitling the applicant to request a hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the Board of Commissioners party status for the limited purpose of determining what constitutes the establishment.