Tribunal asserts jurisdiction over employees' pay equity complaint despite union-employer settlement, requiring further particulars.
A group of hospital employees challenged a pay equity plan, alleging it was gender-biased and failed to recognize their job classes as female-dominated.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on grounds of jurisdiction, timeliness, and standing, arguing that a settlement agreement with the union resolved the matter.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction because the union could not settle the employees' individual complaints on their behalf, and found the application was not untimely as the delay did not constitute an abuse of process.
The Tribunal directed the applicants to provide further particulars to determine whether they had established a prima facie case regarding the gender characterization of their job classes.
Tribunal ruled gender dominance of job class not properly before it due to prior agreement.
The parties sought preliminary rulings on whether the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal had jurisdiction to inquire into the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class and to hear evidence regarding the CAW-Canada Gender Neutral Comparison System.
The Tribunal held that the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class was not properly before it, as the employer was bound by its prior agreement on the issue during negotiations.
The Tribunal declined to rule prematurely on the admissibility of evidence regarding the comparison system.
Review Officer acting under s. 16(2) of the Pay Equity Act is not bound by parties' prior procedural agreements.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal heard preliminary motions regarding an application by the City of Brampton challenging a Review Officer's order.
The Association moved to dismiss the application for failure to provide adequate particulars.
The Tribunal struck paragraph 23 of the City's application, finding that the City's allegation that the Review Officer failed to follow a prior agreement between the parties did not disclose a prima facie violation of the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal held that a Review Officer acting under s. 16(2) is not bound by the parties' prior procedural agreements and is not required to survey all male job classes once appropriate comparators are identified.
The Tribunal also ruled that pay equity comparisons should generally be based on data as of the statutory effective date or up to the mandatory posting date.