Irene Harris

The applicant employer sought review of a Review Officer's order requiring it to demonstrate pay equity maintenance back to 2005.

The employer purchased the facilities out of receivership in 2011 and argued it was impossible to comply for the pre-2011 period due to a lack of records.

The majority of the Tribunal found that the significant delay, combined with the employer's lack of involvement prior to 2011 and the unavailability of records, prejudiced the employer's right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal varied the temporal scope of the order to commence on March 1, 2011.

One member dissented, arguing the employer should be required to demonstrate maintenance back to 2005.

The applicants filed an application challenging a Review Officer's finding that no pay equity adjustments were owing.

At the hearing, after the applicants presented their evidence regarding their job evaluations, the respondent brought a non-suit motion arguing the evidence did not establish a violation of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding the applicants merely disagreed with their job class ratings and failed to show that the employer ignored statutory criteria or unreasonably excluded important job information.

The applicants, Emergency Unit Clerks, filed an application alleging that their employer and union failed to reasonably evaluate their job class during a pay equity maintenance process, specifically regarding added overnight and switchboard duties.

The employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the added duties were captured in the job descriptions and that the applicants' concerns related more to workload and stress than the physical activity and dexterity subfactors they challenged.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to establish that the job evaluation plan unreasonably excluded important job information or violated the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant union filed an application challenging a 2013 Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer, alleging a denial of procedural fairness because it did not receive notice of the employer's application to review services.

The employer and the Pay Equity Office argued the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that conducting a hearing into the procedural fairness allegations would be premature, as the union could file a fresh complaint that the Pay Equity Act had not been complied with.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die to allow the union to file a fresh complaint.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging an Order issued by a Review Officer requiring the production of payroll records.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a preliminary decision scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Review Officer had the legal authority to make the Order.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to advise whether it would pursue its argument that it need not comply with the request for information on the basis of privacy, and set deadlines for the filing of legal authorities.

A group of employees applied under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer and union violated section 5 by improperly evaluating the Unit Clerk job class in an updated pay equity plan.

The employer and union requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were merely disagreeing with the evaluation conclusions rather than alleging a failure to apply the statutory criteria.

As the Tribunal will not second-guess reasonable evaluations agreed to by the workplace parties, the application was dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The applicants, a group of employees, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer and union improperly evaluated the Unit Clerk job class in their pay equity plan, violating section 5 of the Act.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis.

The Tribunal noted that a complaint that one job class should have been evaluated higher is not meaningful without more, and that considerable deference is owed to negotiated pay equity plans.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act regarding the employer's failure to comply with Orders issued by a Pay Equity Review Officer.

The parties reached an agreement on the remedial consequences.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay the unionized and non-unionized employees the pay equity adjustments, including interest, and to adjust their job rates in accordance with the agreed schedule.

The matter was terminated.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent City failed to maintain pay equity when it applied a market adjustment wage increase to a male job class (Residential Mechanical Inspector) without adjusting the proportional value wage line.

The City argued the job class was no longer a 'representative male job class' due to the market adjustment necessitated by recruitment difficulties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (majority) held that the City violated its duty to maintain pay equity under s. 7(1) of the Pay Equity Act, as the Act does not permit a representative male job class to become unrepresentative post-achievement without a statutory exemption.

The Tribunal ordered the City to review the wage line and pay retroactive adjustments.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application, finding the market-adjusted rate anomalous and not reflective of gender discrimination.