Mary Ellen Cummings

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Public Service Staff Union brought a joint application seeking a declaration that their Minutes of Settlement regarding an amended pay equity plan constituted a binding settlement under section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the three requirements from Scarborough No. 2 were met: there was a matter requiring a hearing, a settlement was reached, and it was reduced to writing.

The Tribunal granted the declaration, confirming the settlement is enforceable.

The applicant employer sought to review a Review Officer's Order which found it had not made required pay equity adjustments under its posted 1995 pay equity plans.

The employer argued it had implemented new wage grids in 1996 that provided greater benefits and addressed internal equity.

The Tribunal found that the 1996 re-evaluation was done outside the requirements of the Pay Equity Act and did not relieve the employer of its obligation to pay the adjustments required by the 1995 plans.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's Order and directed the employer to calculate and pay the outstanding adjustments with interest.

The Applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding an Order of a Review Officer.

The Tribunal previously directed the Applicant to file further submissions to establish a prima facie case regarding the gender incumbency of the Educational Assistant job class and its request that the Ministry of Community and Social Services fund its pay equity liabilities.

The Applicant failed to file further submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to plead a prima facie case and confirmed the Review Officer's Order.

The applicant employer sought to adjourn pay equity proceedings pending the outcome of another case regarding Crown funding liability.

The Tribunal declined the adjournment.

The Tribunal also ruled that the alleged sale of the applicant's business to a third party was not a necessary issue in this proceeding, as the central issue was the applicant's failure to make pay equity adjustments prior to the alleged sale.

The third party was deemed not an interested party.

The matter was directed to proceed to an oral hearing on the issue of Crown liability.

The applicant filed an application challenging a Review Officer's refusal to order the employer to implement a specific job evaluation scenario.

An affected party requested disclosure of the job evaluation documents.

The employer resisted, citing a previous privacy ruling.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to produce the documents, finding them relevant to the proceedings and noting its power to compel production supersedes privacy restrictions.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to amend her application to specify the alleged statutory contraventions.

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to review an Order of a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had declined to interfere with a 1992 deemed approved pay equity plan that designated the Educational Assistant job class as gender neutral.

The applicant also challenged its designation as a public sector employer required to use the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the 1992 gender incumbency determination was unreasonable, noting that changes in gender incumbency over time do not render the initial determination unreasonable.

The Tribunal also confirmed that the applicant is a public sector employer because it operates a children's residence under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further submissions before formally dismissing the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal regarding the employer's failure to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employer admitted non-compliance but cited funding constraints and requested a stay pending discussions between its association and the government.

The Tribunal declined to grant a stay, noting the Pay Equity Office did not consent and there were no active settlement discussions.

Finding that the employer failed to meet its onus to prove compliance, the Tribunal ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's Order.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to pay out pay equity adjustments.

The respondent admitted non-compliance but argued it lacked the ability to pay due to a lack of government funding and challenged its inclusion in the broader public sector.

The Tribunal noted the respondent had previously raised and withdrawn these same arguments, found no basis to grant the requested relief, and indicated it would order compliance unless the respondent provided a foundation for a hearing by a specified date.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union requested corrections to the Tribunal's March 27, 2002 decision.

The Tribunal acknowledged two errors and amended the decision to correct the effective dates for the pay equity plan and the formula for calculating the pay equity adjustment and retroactivity.

The Applicant and the Employer requested an adjournment sine die because the Employer posted a pay equity plan and was engaging in discussions about its implementation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a hearing was requested.

The Applicant requested to withdraw its Application objecting to a Review Officer's Order.

The Respondent did not object to the withdrawal, though she expressed concerns about legal costs and enforcement options.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, noting that the Respondent or the Pay Equity Office could now seek to enforce the Review Officer's Order.

The Employer brought an application regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning the calculation and allocation of the 1% of payroll available for pay equity adjustments between 1990 and 1997.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to devote 1% of the bargaining unit's payroll to create a pool for these adjustments and set out a specific formula for calculating retroactive payments.

The Tribunal also ordered the implementation of the pay equity adjusted rates by March 23, 2002, and revoked the Review Officer's Order.

The applicant employer sought an adjournment of its application regarding a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued it could not afford the adjustments due to a lack of funding from the Crown, and that a recent transfer of programs constituted a sale of business to a new employer.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions, requiring the parties to make written submissions on whether the matter should be adjourned, whether the Crown was a proper party, whether the requested remedies were appropriate, and whether the sale of business issue needed to be determined in this proceeding.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan.

The Office sought remedial relief including an order directing a Review Officer to prepare the plan at the employer's expense.

The Tribunal questioned its jurisdiction to grant such relief on a section 24(5) referral and scheduled a hearing, directing the employer to file a report on its compliance efforts.

The employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The employer sought to strike the order and requested the Tribunal inquire into the Review Officer's conduct.

The Tribunal struck the pleadings relating to the Review Officer's conduct, reiterating that its hearings are de novo and it does not inquire into the process or conduct of Review Services.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to assist the parties in setting deadlines for calculating and paying the adjustments.

The applicant employer sought to quash a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments, arguing it lacked the ability to pay and should not be considered a public sector employer.

The Tribunal noted that the employer admitted it was licensed under the Child and Family Services Act, which statutorily defines it as a public sector employer for pay equity purposes.

Furthermore, established Tribunal jurisprudence holds that inability to pay is not a defense to pay equity obligations.

Finding that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case for the requested remedies, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions before making a final decision on dismissing the application.

The Pay Equity Office sought standing to intervene as a party or as a friend of the tribunal in an application brought by the employer challenging a Review Officer's Order.

The Order concluded that the employer had not implemented its pay equity plans and directed payment of adjustments.

The Office argued it had a substantial and direct interest in the outcome, particularly because the non-union employees were unrepresented and vulnerable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Office's general interest in promoting pay equity did not amount to a direct and substantial interest in the specific outcome of the case.

The Tribunal also declined to grant amicus status, noting the issue was a straightforward factual determination of whether the employer had made the required payments.

The applicant sought a review of a Review Officer's order regarding pay equity compliance, asserting that an affected party, Russell Metals Inc., was the true employer.

The affected party argued this issue was raised for the first time in the application and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider issues not raised at Review Services.

Finding fundamental factual disputes in the parties' written submissions on whether the issue was raised below, the Tribunal directed the scheduling of an oral hearing to determine this threshold issue.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order that it was obliged to comply with the Pay Equity Act and adjust the respondent's job rate.

The applicant argued that Russel Metals Inc. was the true employer following a sale of business.

Russel Metals Inc. argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the employer identity issue because it was not raised before the Review Officer.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the issue of the employer's identity was raised at Review Services before proceeding further.

The Tribunal previously dismissed parts of the employer's application relating to complaints about a Review Officer's conduct, leaving only a substantive workplace dispute about pay equity adjustments.

The Pay Equity Office filed a response seeking to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions regarding the Office's standing to participate in the proceeding before convening the hearing.