Mary Ellen Cummings

Following a previous Tribunal direction, the employer and union tracked tip data for Casino Cashiers and Security Officers over nine months.

The review confirmed that the tips attributed to the job classes in the Pay Equity Plan were appropriate.

The Group of Employees objected, arguing that their tips should be deemed insignificant and not counted, as they amounted to less than 10% of their hourly rate.

The Tribunal found that the 10% cut-off was not consistently applied in the pay equity plan and that there was no basis to exclude the Casino Cashiers' tips from their job rate.

The Tribunal directed that the file be closed.

The applicant, a Communication Supervisor, applied to the Tribunal to review a Review Officer's decision finding no contravention of the Pay Equity Act by the employer and union.

The applicant alleged that her new position should have been evaluated consistently with an eliminated male-dominated position, and raised issues regarding banding and delayed re-evaluation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of a contravention, as the Act does not require historical consistency in job evaluations or internal consistency between female job classes.

The Belleville Police Services Board applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning a wage gap.

The parties submitted a Pay Equity Agreement settling the matter.

The Tribunal found the parties had settled the matter pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, requiring no further intervention.

The applicant, a Communication Supervisor, filed an application challenging a Review Officer's decision regarding the evaluation of her position under the Pay Equity Act.

She argued her position should have received at least as many points as the eliminated Emergency Response Officer position.

The employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the Act does not require new positions to be evaluated consistently with eliminated ones.

The Tribunal agreed with the employer's interpretation of the Act but allowed the applicant an opportunity to make further submissions before deciding whether to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant employer sought to challenge an Order of a Review Officer which determined that the employer failed to establish and maintain pay equity as required by the Pay Equity Act.

The employer asserted that its corporate policy statement on equal opportunity and pay equity satisfied its obligations.

The Tribunal found that the employer's policy was not a substitute for the specific requirements of the Act, such as job comparisons and pay adjustments.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had not made out a prima facie case, but provided the employer with a further opportunity to make submissions before dismissing the application.

The applicant employer filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal challenging a Review Officer's order to make pay equity adjustments for three female job classes.

The employer claimed the job classes were over-evaluated by mistake but provided no substantiating information.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to amend its application to comply with Rule 12 of the Rules of Practice by pleading material facts and providing details of the alleged over-evaluation.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to identify and serve the amended application on all current and former incumbents of the affected positions, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The employer applied to challenge a Review Officer's order concluding it failed to establish and maintain pay equity under s. 7(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office requested an extension of time to determine whether it would seek standing to intervene, noting it is not a statutory respondent unless it makes a referral.

The Tribunal agreed that the Office must seek standing to participate and granted the extension, observing that this is the first case addressing the pay equity obligations of a small employer exempt from Part II of the Act.

The applicant union sought a determination that the Community Relations Officer (CRO) job class was a 'female job class' under the Pay Equity Act, challenging a 1995 deemed approved pay equity plan that classified it as gender neutral.

The Tribunal applied a reasonableness standard of review to the plan.

Finding that both present and historical incumbency supported the gender neutral classification, and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the original negotiators ignored gender stereotypes in the field of work, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's decision that a negotiated change in the collective agreement did not contravene the Pay Equity Act.

The change increased the threshold for part-time employees to receive overtime pay, aligning it with full-time employees.

The Employer argued the Application should be dismissed without a hearing as no prima facie breach was pleaded.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the Union did not assert a benefit was lost by a female job class compared to a male job class comparator, but merely that part-time employees took home less pay.

The Application was dismissed.

The Tribunal issued a decision revoking a Review Officer's Order pursuant to sections 23(3) and 25(2)(d) of the Pay Equity Act.

This revocation was made in accordance with a Divisional Court decision that granted the employer's application for judicial review of the Tribunal's previous decisions.

Leave to appeal the Divisional Court's decision had been denied by the Court of Appeal.

The Union applied to appeal a Review Officer's decision finding no contravention of the Pay Equity Act.

The dispute centered on a negotiated collective agreement amendment that increased the overtime threshold for part-time employees from 24 to 35 hours, aligning it with full-time employees.

The Employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal noted its initial impression that the application did not plead a prima facie contravention, as not every compensation reduction constitutes a breach of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file further submissions before making a final determination on the dismissal request.

The applicant employer sought a review of a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act which concluded that the job classes of Bookkeeper, Child and Youth Worker, and CYW Supervisor were female job classes.

The employer argued that the Child and Youth Worker and CYW Supervisor classes were gender neutral, and the Bookkeeper class was male.

The Tribunal found that the employer had reasonably determined the Child and Youth Worker and CYW Supervisor classes to be gender neutral based on present and historical incumbency, which showed a balanced employment of men and women.

However, the Tribunal found the employer failed to consider gender stereotyping for the Bookkeeper class, which had a single male incumbent for many years.

The Tribunal varied the order, confirming the child and youth worker classes as gender neutral, and directed the employer to investigate gender stereotyping for the Bookkeeper class.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter alleging the employer failed to comply with an order to prepare and post a pay equity plan and make required payments.

The parties reached an agreement to pay out all outstanding pay equity adjustments on an instalment basis by March 1, 2006.

The Office requested an extended adjournment until March 15, 2006, to allow for the completion of these payments.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the agreement of the interested parties, and directed the employer to post the decision in the workplace.

The Employer brought an Application regarding a Review Officer's Order requiring it to negotiate a pay equity plan using the proxy method.

The Employer argued it was not a public sector employer under Regulation 37/02.

The Tribunal struck paragraphs of the Application alleging bias by the Review Officer, noting its hearings are de novo.

The Tribunal declined to defer the hearing pending a judicial review in another case and directed the parties to provide further submissions on the legal effect of Regulation 37/02 and the Union's claim that the regulation is ultra vires.

A group of employees (Clerk 3s) applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, complaining that a pay equity adjustment given to Clerk 4s created an unfair wage gap.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Pay Equity Act does not require comparable female job classes to be paid the same, but rather requires matching female to male job classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants failed to plead material facts showing that the former union and employer acted unreasonably in evaluating the job classes.

The Tribunal indicated its intention to dismiss the application but allowed the applicants an opportunity to file further submissions.

The Employer sought to adjourn two applications sine die pending additional information regarding a government settlement that might resolve the matters.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted a short adjournment to July 5, 2004, rather than sine die, noting that the applications had been outstanding for a significant time and that pay equity was not being implemented in the workplace while the applications were pending.

The Pay Equity Office brought an application alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan using the proxy method.

The employer did not respond or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the employer in non-compliance and ordered it to prepare and post the plan, and to make required retroactive adjustments.

The Tribunal declined the Office's request to add an order for interest, noting that a compliance referral is not the appropriate forum to vary the original order's remedies, and the employer had no notice of the claim for interest.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to comply with the Pay Equity Act.

The employer argued that the employee who initiated the complaint had signed a full and final release upon her termination, which barred any further claims arising from her employment.

The Tribunal found that the release did not specifically mention the Pay Equity Act, and therefore did not preclude the pay equity complaint.

Furthermore, the Review Officer's Order was not personal to the employee but required the employer to establish general compliance with its statutory pay equity obligations.

The application was dismissed and the employer was ordered to perform job comparisons and pay any required adjustments.

The Applicant, OPSEU Pension Trust, objected to an administrative direction requiring it to give notice of its application to OPSEU, the Ontario Pension Board, and former non-union employees.

The application itself challenged a Review Officer's order finding that the sale of business provisions of the Pay Equity Act applied to the creation of the Trust.

The Tribunal held that there is a low threshold for giving notice and directed the Applicant to provide notice to all the identified entities and former employees, noting that they could later argue whether those parties had sufficient interest to participate.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to resume paying pay equity adjustments and make retroactive payments.

The employer did not file a response to the referral.

The Tribunal found the Office's assertion unchallenged and ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's order.