Enforcement application adjourned sine die to allow employer time to comply with pay equity order.
The Pay Equity Office referred an order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.
The employer conceded non-compliance but provided a timetable to achieve compliance by mid-November 2014.
The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die until December 31, 2014, at which point it will be deemed terminated unless a party requests it to proceed.
Application dismissed for failure to comply with Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal dismissed the application because the applicant failed to comply with the directions set out in an earlier decision dated June 30, 2014.
Pay equity application faces dismissal unless applicant cures service and jurisdictional deficiencies.
The Tribunal identified several deficiencies, including failure to serve the respondents, lack of evidence that a Review Officer had dealt with the complaint, and the substance appearing to be a classification grievance rather than a pay equity issue.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to cure these deficiencies by a specified deadline, failing which the application would be dismissed.
Pay equity applications terminated following written settlement between the parties.
The parties entered into a written settlement of their applications under the Pay Equity Act pursuant to section 25.1.
Accordingly, the Tribunal terminated its inquiry into the applications and directed the Registrar to close the files.
Application terminated due to lack of communication from the applicant.
The Pay Equity Office filed an application against Touchstone Youth Centre.
Following a previous decision on March 4, 2014, the Tribunal received no further communication from the Pay Equity Office.
Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the application terminated.
Review Officer's pay equity order revoked due to flawed job evaluations; employer permitted to implement new plan.
The applicant employer sought to revoke an order issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Office, which directed it to take specific steps to achieve pay equity.
The employer retained a compensation consultant who identified serious flaws in the job evaluations, banding structure, and male wage line determinations underlying the order.
The consultant developed a new pay equity plan for the employer.
As the application was unopposed and the consultant's evidence of the order's flaws was uncontradicted, the Tribunal revoked the relevant schedules of the order and directed the employer to post and implement its newly developed pay equity plan.
Pay equity enforcement proceedings stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act following respondent's bankruptcy.
The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal regarding the respondent's non-compliance with an order to pay $870.36.
The respondent had made an assignment into bankruptcy.
The Tribunal held that section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act operated to stay the proceedings, rejecting the Office's argument that the stay did not apply until the Tribunal confirmed the order.
The Tribunal gave the Office a deadline to advise if the stay had been lifted or the trustee discharged.
Tribunal declined to issue consent order revoking Review Officer's order without an evidentiary basis.
The applicants and respondents reached a settlement regarding a pay equity dispute and requested that the Tribunal issue a consent order revoking a Review Officer's Order.
The Tribunal declined to issue the requested consent order, noting its established practice that it will not vary or revoke orders without a sufficient evidentiary basis, such as an agreed statement of facts.
The Tribunal emphasized that the written settlement is already binding on the parties under the Pay Equity Act, making the consent order unnecessary.
Tribunal extended the respondent's deadline to comply with production directions.
The Tribunal issued a decision extending the deadline for the respondent school board to comply with production directions previously ordered.
The deadline was extended to April 15, 2014, pursuant to the Tribunal's authority under section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
Tribunal sets order of cross-examination and directs written submissions on disclosure issues.
The applicants objected to a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal ruled on the order of proceedings, determining that the applicants would cross-examine the responding party's witnesses before the intervenor (Ontario) posed questions, followed by re-examination by the responding party.
The Tribunal also directed Ontario to provide written submissions regarding the sufficiency of its disclosure of its case, as requested by the applicant SEIU, rather than convening an immediate conference call.
Employer ordered to pay over $94,000 in pay equity adjustments after failing to comply with order.
The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal because the employer failed to comply with an order to pay pay equity adjustments.
The employer did not file a response or attend the pre-hearing conference.
The Tribunal found that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving compliance and ordered the employer to pay the specified adjustments and interest to current and former employees.
Tribunal provides formula for calculating and smoothing annual salary for pay equity adjustments.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal provided directions on how to implement its previous pay equity decision regarding Communication Operators and their male comparators, Mechanical Technicians.
The Tribunal directed that the hourly wage rate for Communication Operators be calculated by dividing the comparator's annual salary by 2080 hours, and their annual salary be determined by multiplying that hourly rate by 2184 hours.
The resulting annual salary is to be paid in equal instalments using the employer's 'pay smoothing' practice.
Tribunal issued a procedural direction to ensure all parties received a prior decision regarding pay equity applications.
The Acting Chair of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural decision regarding three applications made by non-union employees of the respondent school board under the Pay Equity Act.
The decision clarified that a previous decision issued on September 25, 2013, was intended to apply to multiple files, and directed that copies of that previous decision be provided to all parties.
Tribunal converts scheduled hearing date to case management meeting to address intervenor's adjournment request.
The intervenor, the Ministry of the Attorney General, requested an adjournment of scheduled continuation hearing dates due to a recent change of counsel.
The applicants agreed on certain conditions, while the responding Nursing Homes' position was unclear.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to hold a conference call and instead directed that the upcoming scheduled hearing date be converted into a case management meeting to resolve the adjournment request and scheduling issues.
Pay equity application adjourned sine die for one year on consent of the parties.
The parties agreed that the matter should be adjourned sine die pending another application anticipated to be filed by the responding party trade union.
The Tribunal issued a procedural decision adjourning the application sine die for one year, after which it will be deemed terminated unless a party seeks to proceed.
Pay equity application closed due to applicant's failure to serve the responding party.
The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act but failed to serve it on the responding party.
The Registrar directed the applicant to serve the application and file a Statement of Service within 10 days, failing which the file would be closed.
The applicant did not comply with the direction.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to close the file.
Tribunal issued procedural directions setting deadlines for pay equity applications and preliminary objections.
The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act objecting to a Review Officer's order regarding the evaluation of Behaviour Resource Workers.
Another application was filed regarding Psychological Associates.
The Tribunal issued procedural directions pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, setting deadlines for other job classes to file applications and for the responding school board to raise preliminary objections.
Application under the Pay Equity Act withdrawn by the applicant.
The applicant, Farm Fresh Poultry Co-Op Inc., withdrew its application under the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal and closed the file.
Pay equity plan binding on employer; mutual mistake doctrine inapplicable to void written labour agreements.
The Association objected to a Review Officer's decision not to order the City to increase the pay equity adjustment for the Communication Operator job class.
The parties had negotiated a Pay Equity Plan which was approved by City Council, but the City subsequently refused to execute it, arguing that the Plan's provision for an hourly wage adjustment did not reflect the parties' intention to equalize annual salaries (a 'mutual mistake').
The Tribunal held that the Plan was binding on the City, as it had been properly ratified by Council.
The Tribunal rejected the application of the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake in the labour relations context, finding that parties are bound by the objective meaning of their written agreements.
The City was ordered to pay the hourly adjustments specified in the Plan, with interest on unpaid amounts.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory termination and workplace harassment dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a former employee of a Tim Hortons franchise, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, colour, race, and ethnic origin regarding her termination and treatment during employment.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was terminated for providing food without payment, and there was no evidence linking the termination to a prohibited ground.
The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations of discriminatory treatment, noting that age-related comments were part of tolerated workplace banter in which the applicant participated, and she failed to formally complain under the employer's harassment policy.
The application was dismissed.