M. David Ross

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural order regarding an application to determine the processes and procedures for ensuring female job classes at an employer using the proxy method continue to have access to male comparators for pay equity maintenance.

The Tribunal set the scope of interventions, declining to impose page limits on written submissions but limiting oral submissions to 30 minutes per intervenor.

The Tribunal also established a schedule for the identification of expert witnesses, the filing of written submissions, and set hearing dates for March 2025.

The applicant and respondent are engaged in a dispute regarding the use of the proxy method for pay equity maintenance.

An intervenor, Ontario Agencies Supporting Individuals with Special Needs, noted in its submissions that it had not reviewed the pleadings.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the Registrar to deliver the application, response submissions, and the underlying order to all intervenors to ensure they have full information when preparing their submissions on the proxy method process.

The applicant requested to reschedule the final hearing dates for closing arguments due to the unavailability of their advisor.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, rescheduling the hearing to March 1, 2024, while noting the importance of concluding the 24-year-old matter.

The Pay Equity Office filed an application seeking remedies to require the respondent to take reasonable procedural steps to establish a pay equity plan.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required timelines.

Given the uncontested facts and unchallenged remedies, the Tribunal ordered the remedies as requested by the applicant.

The respondent requested reconsideration of the Tribunal's procedural decision that set a written submission schedule to address the scope of interventions, rather than scheduling a case management hearing.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider, finding that proceeding directly to written submissions was more expeditious than attempting to coordinate a hearing date for 11 parties.

The Tribunal noted that the submission schedule was reasonable and necessary to ensure procedural fairness and clarity regarding the intervenors' participation.

The respondent union requested reconsideration of the Tribunal's September 15, 2023 decision, which had set a schedule for written submissions regarding the nature and scope of interventions.

The Tribunal directed a schedule for the other parties to file responses to the reconsideration request and for the union to reply, noting that the timelines from the September 15 decision remain in effect in the interim.

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to challenge an Order issued by a Review Officer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Review Officer had found that the employer's 1989 pay equity plan was not approved and directed the employer to determine if retroactive adjustments were owed prior to 2016.

The Tribunal found that the Review Officer fundamentally erred by ignoring that the 1989 plan was statutorily "deemed approved" because no objections were filed within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's uncontested submission that it could not produce records prior to 2016, finding its 2022 amended plan compliant with the Act.

The Review Officer's Order was revoked.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act regarding the pay equity maintenance process using proxy comparators.

Several entities requested intervenor status.

As no objections were received, the Tribunal granted intervenor status to all requesting entities.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for written submissions regarding the nature and scope of the interventions, including parameters for evidence, cross-examination, and argument.

The applicant union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer was obligated to perform joint pay equity maintenance pursuant to the parties' 2010 Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal found that the language of the Minutes of Settlement was clear and unambiguous, and did not confer an obligation on the employer to negotiate pay equity maintenance or complete it jointly with the union.

The Tribunal declined to admit extrinsic evidence, as there was no ambiguity in the agreement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested that its application under the Pay Equity Act continue to be adjourned sine die to allow time to review a recent Notice of Decision from the Pay Equity Office.

The Tribunal found that the original application, which was based on concerns that the Office would not consider a fresh application due to a 2013 decision, had become moot because the Office had in fact issued a new decision on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as moot, noting that the applicant could file a new application regarding the recent decision.

The applicant requested that its application under the Pay Equity Act continue to be adjourned sine die.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a previous decision dated December 6, 2022, before it could consider the request.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties subsequently advised the Tribunal by letter that they had entered into a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the matter settled and cancelled all scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant union sought review of a Review Officer's Order preparing a pay equity plan, arguing as a preliminary issue that the Review Officer's discretion was fettered by previous Tribunal decisions and that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied.

The Tribunal held that its previous decisions directing the Review Officer to prepare the plan did not fetter her discretion or bind her to agreements previously reached by the parties.

The preliminary objection was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits of whether the plan complied with the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant hospital sought to validate its unilateral completion of a pay equity plan after negotiations with the respondent union reached an impasse.

The parties had signed Terms of Reference in 2006 to negotiate a new plan following an amalgamation.

The Tribunal held that the hospital was statutorily required under the Pay Equity Act to negotiate the plan with the bargaining agent and could not unilaterally implement it.

Finding that the parties' relationship was dysfunctional and further negotiations would be fruitless, the Tribunal ordered a Review Officer to prepare the pay equity plan pursuant to section 25(2)(a) of the Act.

The applicant union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act asserting that the parties' Minutes of Settlement obligated the respondent employer to negotiate pay equity maintenance.

The respondent disputed this interpretation.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that the interpretation of the settlement language be determined as a threshold issue via a written hearing before considering other preliminary objections.

The applicants, employed in human resources job classes, alleged that their positions were not evaluated in accordance with the Pay Equity Act by the respondent City.

After directing the parties to prepare job descriptions and re-evaluate the positions, the Tribunal found that the City's job descriptions reasonably captured the relevant job duties.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Tribunal concluded that the City's evaluations of the Manager of Compensation and Senior Compensation Consultant roles were reasonable and complied with the Act.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant requested to adjourn the proceeding indefinitely pending the Tribunal's direction on pay equity maintenance using proxy comparators in other files.

The union opposed the delay.

The Tribunal agreed with the union, dismissing the adjournment request, as there was no timeline for the other files.

Recognizing the broad implications of the issue, the Tribunal directed that a Notice to the Community be posted to allow interested persons or organizations to seek intervenor status to make submissions on the procedure for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

The applicant union requested leave to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act after the parties resolved the issues between them.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application withdrawn, cancelling all previously scheduled hearing and meeting dates.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

After two sine die adjournments to allow the parties to resolve disclosure issues, the issues remained unresolved.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the Registrar to set a hearing date and ordered a schedule for the parties to file submissions regarding the outstanding disclosure.

The applicant sought to use the job-to-job method of comparison during the maintenance phase of pay equity, while the respondent argued for the proportional value method.

The parties requested to use the scheduled hearing date for mediation, but a family illness necessitated an adjournment.

The Tribunal cancelled the hearing date, directed the appointment of a mediator, and set a schedule for filing documents and witness statements if mediation fails.