Heather MacNaughton

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her pay equity application.

She argued that the Tribunal misunderstood her job duties, that she was paid less than male enforcement clerks, and that the respondent obstructed her attempts to find replacement work.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for reconsideration.

She did not present new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearing, did not show a change in circumstances, and did not argue the decision was wrong in law.

The Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board brought a motion to dismiss the pay equity applications of two employees in the Planner 1 job class, arguing the position was gender neutral.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed historical incumbency and gender stereotypes of the field of work.

Finding that the Planner 1 job had one male and one female incumbent during the relevant statutory period and did not involve traditionally female stereotypical work, the Tribunal concluded the job class was gender neutral.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the rating of the jobs, and the Board's motion to dismiss the applications was granted.

A group of Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) filed a re-Application challenging a deemed approved pay equity plan negotiated by their union and the hospital.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the re-Application.

The Tribunal found that the RPNs failed to meet their pleading obligations by not detailing allegations that the plan failed to comply with the minimum standards of Part 1 of the Pay Equity Act.

Concluding that the applicants had a fundamental misunderstanding of the Act and that there was no prima facie case to meet, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the re-Application.

The Law Society of Upper Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the Law Society to post and distribute a notice to affected employees by a certain date.

The Law Society failed to post the notice in a timely manner and failed to send it to former employees.

The Tribunal found the notice ineffectual and ordered the Law Society to post, distribute, and mail a new notice by October 15, 1996.

The applicant requested that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal hold its proceedings in abeyance pending the decision of an interest Board of Arbitration.

The applicant argued the arbitration decision would significantly impact its pay equity application.

The respondent opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal declined to defer its proceedings, finding that the interest arbitration did not address the same issues, particularly whether the parties were implementing their current amended pay equity plan in accordance with its terms.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding a pay equity plan and jointly requested a consent order from the Tribunal to replace a Review Services Order.

The Tribunal declined to issue the consent order, reiterating its policy that it requires sufficient evidence or an agreed statement of facts to ensure any order complies with the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal noted that written settlements are nonetheless binding under s. 25.1 of the Act and criticized the parties for attempting to impose a deadline on the Tribunal's decision.

The Union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to enforce a Memorandum of Agreement requiring the Employer to conclude a Pay Equity Plan based on male comparators in existence as of January 1, 1990.

The Employer argued that new, more appropriate male comparators had come into existence after that date and should be incorporated before the plan was concluded.

The Tribunal ordered the Employer to conclude the plan using the January 1, 1990 comparators, noting that any subsequent changes in the workplace could be addressed through the maintenance obligation after the plan was posted.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the proceedings sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request on consent, noting that the matters would be terminated one year after the date of the decision unless brought on for hearing before the expiry of that period.