Tribunal declined to issue an order dismissing a reconsideration application that was subsumed by a binding settlement.
The parties reached a written settlement of all pay equity matters pursuant to s. 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.
The employer objected to the union's request to dismiss the employer's reconsideration application, and both parties suggested ways for the Tribunal to endorse the record to reinforce the settlement's finality.
The Tribunal declined to issue any order, finding that the settlement was binding and subsumed the reconsideration request, making any further order unnecessary.
Adjournment granted pending judicial review of adjudicator's jurisdiction to avoid potential duplication of proceedings.
The complainant requested an adjournment of the human rights proceedings pending an application for judicial review of a prior decision that confirmed the adjudicator's jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The Commission and the respondents opposed the adjournment.
The adjudicator granted the adjournment, finding that the balance of convenience favoured it because a successful judicial review would require the entire matter to be reheard, and there was a possibility of minimizing delay by having the judicial review heard together with a similar pending case.
Chair of the Board of Inquiry has broad statutory authority to reassign adjudicators for administrative reasons.
The complainant brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of a newly assigned adjudicator to hear the human rights complaint, arguing that the original adjudicator was seized of the matter.
The Board of Inquiry held that section 35(8) of the Human Rights Code grants the Chair broad authority to reassign panels for any reason, including scheduling and workload demands, and that the parties were not legally entitled to prior notice of the reassignment.
The motion was dismissed and the hearing was ordered to proceed.
Tribunal ordered the posting of an agreed-upon pay equity plan following a settlement.
The parties reached a written settlement of the matters in dispute regarding a pay equity plan, replacing the plan previously ordered by the Review Officer.
In accordance with section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal noted the settlement was binding and ordered that the agreed-upon pay equity plan be posted in the workplace forthwith.
Employer cannot rely on bargaining strength exception to pay equity maintenance until equity achieved establishment-wide.
The Employer objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it failed to maintain pay equity for female job classes represented by CUPE 1734.
The Employer argued that wage disparities were due to differences in bargaining strength under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal held that s. 8(2) cannot be relied upon because pay equity had not yet been achieved for all employees in the establishment, specifically the teachers.
The Tribunal also found that CUPE 1734 was not complicit in the Employer's contravention, as the union had attempted to negotiate maintenance and subsequently filed a complaint.
The Employer's application was dismissed and the Order confirmed, except for the requirement that the union post a notice.
Actual hours worked are irrelevant to determining job rate when comparators receive annual salaries.
During a pay equity hearing, the Tribunal posed a question to the parties regarding the relevance of actual hours worked when determining the 'job rate' for female job classes and male comparators who are all paid an annual salary.
The Tribunal ruled that actual hours worked are irrelevant to the determination of job rate in these circumstances.
Converting an annual salary to an hourly rate based on actual hours worked would introduce an inappropriate element of incumbent performance into the calculation of the rate for the job class.
Motion for non-suit dismissed; parties directed to make submissions on job rate determination.
The Branch Affiliates brought a motion to non-suit the York Region Board of Education at the close of the Board's case.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the motion without requiring the Branch Affiliates to be put to their election.
The Tribunal also directed the parties to prepare legal submissions on the relevance of hours worked to the determination of 'job rate' under the Pay Equity Act when the job classes receive an annual salary.
Individual employees represented by a union lack standing to intervene in pay equity plan proceedings.
A group of individual teachers sought standing to participate in Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal proceedings regarding a pay equity plan negotiated between their employer and their bargaining agent.
The Tribunal dismissed their application and denied them intervenor status, finding that the Pay Equity Act does not provide individual employees represented by a bargaining agent with a statutory role in the preparation of a pay equity plan.
Furthermore, the teachers did not have a direct legal interest that would entitle them to party status at law, as the proceedings would not threaten the existence of their employment contracts or reduce their actual remuneration.
Union certification constitutes a changed circumstance requiring a single pay equity plan to be split.
The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal after being certified to represent nurses at St. Joseph's Villa.
ONA argued that its certification constituted a changed circumstance under the Pay Equity Act, rendering the existing pay equity plan inappropriate, and sought disclosure of pay equity information.
The Tribunal held that certification was a changed circumstance because the Act requires separate plans for bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees.
The Tribunal ordered the existing plan to be split but declined to order the negotiation of a new plan.
The employer was also ordered to disclose specific information to allow ONA to fulfill its statutory obligations.
Motion alleging reasonable apprehension of bias due to another tribunal member's resignation dismissed.
The applicant employer brought a preliminary motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the unexplained resignation of an employer representative in another case suggested a lack of adjudicative independence at the Tribunal.
The majority of the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were too attenuated and remote to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's history demonstrated independent decision-making.
The dissenting member would have found a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the institutional setting and the lack of explanation for the member's resignation.