Janis Sarra

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.

A group of unionized nursing employees filed a complaint alleging that the pay equity plan negotiated between their union and the employer contravened the Pay Equity Act by failing to accurately capture and value their job content.

The employer and union raised a preliminary objection that individual unionized employees lack standing to challenge a deemed approved plan.

The majority of the Tribunal held that while employees lack standing to complain under sections 12 and 14, which confer rights exclusively on the bargaining agent, they do have standing under section 7 to allege that the compensation practices fail to provide for pay equity.

However, applying a high threshold of review, the majority found that the application did not disclose an unreasonable exclusion of job information and dismissed the complaint.

The Vice-Chair dissented, arguing for a lower prima facie threshold.

The employer applied for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision regarding the pay equity bargaining process and comparison of job classes.

The employer argued that the comparison system should not have been amended, that materials not before the Tribunal were considered, and that there was no evidence to support conclusions about the rating committee's ability to assess jobs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the original decision was consistent with established jurisprudence on job content accuracy, that the parties had full opportunity to make submissions, and that there was adequate evidentiary support for the findings.

The Tribunal concluded the employer failed to meet the test for reconsideration.

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 Employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal objecting to a Review Officer's order that found three female job classes (Packer, Packaging Machine Operator B, and Sample Room) were of equal or comparable value to three male job classes (Dough Feeder, Janitor, and Receiver).

The Employer alleged the Union failed to bargain in good faith by rejecting the initial joint evaluations, while the Union alleged the Employer intimidated female committee members.

The Tribunal dismissed both preliminary allegations.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the joint committee's collection of job information was incomplete and its application of the evaluation system was not gender-neutral, as it failed to consistently value skills and effort characteristic of women's work, such as manual dexterity, visual concentration, and multi-tasking.

Applying the evaluation tool to the corrected job information, the Tribunal upheld the Review Officer's findings that the female job classes were of equal or comparable value to the male job classes and ordered the parties to negotiate a pay equity adjustment schedule.

The Tribunal determined how pay equity adjustments should be incorporated into collective agreements between the hospital and the nurses' union.

The Tribunal held that under subsection 9(3) of the Pay Equity Act, all positions in a job class must be adjusted by the same dollar amount, meaning all levels of the salary schedule must receive the adjustment, not just the job rate.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the newly negotiated collective agreements were 'relevant' under subsection 13(10) because they had not yet taken the pay equity adjustments into account, and therefore the adjusted rates must be incorporated into them.

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 Employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's order requiring it to pay the female job class of registered nurses an additional $0.37 per hour.

The Tribunal upheld the Review Officer's finding that subsection 13(10) of the Pay Equity Act requires pay equity adjustments to be incorporated into the collective agreement rate, and that subsequent negotiated increases must be calculated on the adjusted rate.

The Tribunal also found that the Employer failed to maintain pay equity under subsection 7(1) by giving the male comparator job class a smaller wage increase than other non-union staff, which artificially held back the nurses' job rate.

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.