Heather M. MacNaughton

The Applicants, a group of Review Officers, challenged their job class placement under the employer's pay equity plan.

During a preliminary motion brought by the Respondent, evidence revealed that the Review Officers were treated as being in the ALR 19 job class for most of the pay equity process, despite being posted in the ALR 20 job class.

The Tribunal found the preliminary motion ill-founded based on this new evidence and ordered both parties to file new pleadings to properly address the issues revealed.

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.

The parties reached an agreement regarding a process to resolve outstanding pay equity matters and requested the Tribunal to incorporate their agreement into an order.

The Tribunal ordered the withdrawal of two applications and the adjournment of a third.

Pursuant to section 25(2) of the Pay Equity Act, a Review Officer was assigned to assist the parties in concluding pay equity plans for the SETA and PSSP bargaining units.

The order detailed the job evaluation system to be used, the timeline for preparing and posting the plan, and the information the Review Officer must provide if required to carry out job comparisons or determine pay equity adjustments.

The employer posted a pay equity plan that purported to cover employees in two newly certified bargaining units without negotiating with the union.

The union argued the posting was invalid because it occurred after certification, triggering the employer's obligation to negotiate.

The employer contended the plan was posted prior to certification.

The Tribunal found that the plan was not properly posted in a location accessible to all employees until after the union was certified.

Consequently, the employer violated the Pay Equity Act by unilaterally posting the plan and was ordered to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system and pay equity plan with the union.