Mary Anne McKellar

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The parties resolved their cross-applications under the Pay Equity Act.

The union's counsel advised the Tribunal of the resolution.

The Tribunal presumed section 25.1 of the Act applied.

The applications were terminated and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant filed an application under section 23(3) of the Pay Equity Act.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and resolved the matter.

Consequently, the applicant withdrew her application, and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

At a pre-hearing conference for an application under the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal found that the applicant's pleadings did not clearly set out the facts relied upon to assert a contravention by the responding hospital.

The Tribunal directed the self-represented applicant to file written representations answering specific questions about his requests for a pay raise and his assertion that he should be paid at the Senior Scientist rate, and set a schedule for the hospital's response.