Mary Anne McKellar

The applicant, Ontario Nurses' Association, requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act against the Municipality of Chatham Kent.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application against the responding parties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested a 60-day extension to comply with the Tribunal's previous order dated July 15, 2011, citing practical difficulties.

The Tribunal granted the request and extended the compliance deadline to October 17, 2011.

The applicant, a non-profit organization funded by the Ministry of Health, sought to rescind a 2003 Order declaring it a 'seeking employer' under the proxy provisions of the Pay Equity Act, arguing it was not a public sector employer.

Alternatively, it sought to vary a 2010 Order directing it to pay retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant did not fit within the statutory definition of a public sector employer, it had voluntarily posted a pay equity plan using the proxy methodology and received funding for it.

The plan became deemed approved and binding on the employer and employees.

The Tribunal declined to rescind the 2003 Order but varied the 2010 Order to reflect the correct outstanding liability of $753,507.03.

The Township of McGarry brought an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity.

The application was unopposed after the complaining employee resolved her issues and withdrew.

Based on affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found that the Township had not failed to maintain pay equity prior to April 28, 2008, and that the values assigned to job classes by the joint job evaluation committee were reasonable.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded, rendering the Pay Equity Office's compliance application moot.

The applicant union filed an objection under the Pay Equity Act, arguing that the wage grid for female job classes should be compressed to match the shorter wage grid of their male comparators in another bargaining unit.

The Tribunal found that the union was not estopped from raising the issue, but concluded that the Pay Equity Act does not require the equalization of wage grid structures, only the adjustment of job rates.

The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that the differing grid structures violated the Human Rights Code, noting that the Pay Equity Act is a comprehensive scheme akin to a special program.

The application was dismissed.

The Pay Equity Office applied to the Tribunal to enforce a Review Officer's order against the employer.

After the employer failed to respond, the Tribunal directed compliance.

The employer subsequently filed a request for reconsideration, arguing it lacked notice and disputing the merits of the order.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it was filed beyond the 20-day time limit without explanation, the employer had been properly served, and the Tribunal is statutorily precluded from considering the merits of the underlying order in an enforcement proceeding.

The union applied for a review of a Review Officer's order directing the implementation of a pay equity plan using the proportional value method retroactive to January 1, 2006.

The union argued the parties had agreed to a Combined Method (job-to-job and proportional value) and that the Pay Equity Act required it.

The Tribunal found no factual agreement to use the Combined Method and held that the Act did not compel its use since pay equity had already been achieved under the original plan.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a self-represented employee of the respondent police association, applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking a compensation adjustment.

She argued that two executive positions (Administrator and Executive Officer) should be included as male comparators in the proportional value (PV) analysis.

The Tribunal found that the executive positions were not 'representative male job classes' under the Pay Equity Act because their compensation was anomalous, pegged to an external referent (police constable salaries), and not reflective of the employer's overall compensation practices.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that even if the applicant's job were re-evaluated at the maximum points, no pay equity adjustment would be required based on the appropriate male wage line.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's allegations of bias against the Vice-Chair.

The Pay Equity Commission brought a referral application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party failed to file submissions in response to a previous decision.

The Tribunal found that the responding party had not complied with the Order issued against it and directed the payment of $5,268.35 plus interest to the affected employee.

The Pay Equity Commission applied for enforcement of a Review Officer Order against the Employer.

The Employer had previously acknowledged non-compliance but failed to take corrective steps.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to file written submissions showing cause why it should not be found in non-compliance and ordered to pay the outstanding amount of $5268.35 plus interest.

The applicant union sought an order requiring the employer hospital to adjust the wage grids for female job classes in its clerical bargaining unit to mirror the wage grids for male comparator job classes in its service bargaining unit, including the rate of progression through the grid.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Pay Equity Act only requires adjustments to the 'job rate' (the highest rate of compensation available to a job class) to achieve pay equity.

The Act does not mandate the equalization of entire wage grids or rates of progression below the job rate, which remain matters for collective bargaining.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which they will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction replacing a previous decision due to a typographical error.

Following a hearing for final arguments, the self-represented applicant was permitted to file written reply submissions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to ensure copies of her submissions were provided to the responding party's counsel, and noted that allegations regarding the conduct of the hearing would be addressed by the panel in due course.

The Pay Equity Commission brought an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act to enforce an Order of a Review Officer against the respondent employer.

The employer failed to file a response or any submissions despite being directed to do so.

The Tribunal found that the employer had not complied with the Order and directed the employer to pay the specified amounts to the identified individuals.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application alleging the Employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order directing payment to specified employees.

The Employer did not file a response within the required time.

As the Employer bears the onus of establishing compliance under section 24(5.3) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal directed the Employer to file written submissions showing cause why a decision finding non-compliance and directing payment should not be issued.

The responding party sought leave to amend its pleadings to raise an issue regarding the identification of male comparators in the parties' original pay equity plan.

The Tribunal found it could not assess the potential for prejudice without the actual language of the proposed amendment.

To avoid adjourning the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal bifurcated the proceedings, deferring the amendment request and directing the parties to first address preliminary factual and legal questions regarding the pay grids.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act regarding a Review Officer's failure to make an order against the employer concerning job evaluation and the male wage line.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application without further inquiry, arguing it failed to state a prima facie case.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the applicant's factual assertions, if assumed true, could reasonably result in relief under the Act.

The matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act objecting to a Review Officer's Order.

At a pre-hearing conference, the applicant indicated it would seek an adjournment but failed to file any correspondence.

As no response was filed and the applicant failed to communicate further, the Tribunal adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no party sought to proceed by June 30, 2010.