Nicole LeClerc

L'employeur a présenté une requête visant à faire déclarer irrecevable la plainte d'un groupe de bibliotechniciennes syndiquées qui contestaient le programme d'équité salariale négocié entre l'employeur et leur syndicat.

Le Tribunal a conclu qu'il avait compétence pour entendre une telle plainte, car la présomption d'approbation de l'article 14(5) de la Loi sur l'équité salariale peut être réfutée.

Cependant, la majorité du Tribunal a statué que les employées n'avaient pas démontré une erreur sérieuse et déraisonnable dans le processus d'évaluation des emplois, qui était par ailleurs exemplaire.

La requête des employées a donc été rejetée.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal after being certified to represent nurses at St. Joseph's Villa.

ONA argued that its certification constituted a changed circumstance under the Pay Equity Act, rendering the existing pay equity plan inappropriate, and sought disclosure of pay equity information.

The Tribunal held that certification was a changed circumstance because the Act requires separate plans for bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees.

The Tribunal ordered the existing plan to be split but declined to order the negotiation of a new plan.

The employer was also ordered to disclose specific information to allow ONA to fulfill its statutory obligations.

The employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal objecting to a Review Officer's order regarding the calculation of compensation for female job classes.

The Tribunal held that a shift premium available to male comparators must be provided to female job classes on the same terms, as the female classes' existing shift premium was illusory due to scheduling preconditions.

The Tribunal also found that a paid meal break for female job classes was not a benefit to be included in compensation, as employees remained under the employer's control.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that the cost of maintaining pay equity and preventing the wage gap from widening cannot be included in the 1% of payroll dedicated to closing the existing wage gap.

The employer and the union engaged in pay equity negotiations and signed a memorandum of settlement.

The employer later claimed that the agreement was subject to ratification by the Board of Commissioners of Police, which did not approve it.

A Review Officer subsequently ordered the employer to post a pay equity plan.

The employer applied to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act does not require ratification of a pay equity plan.

Because the employer did not clearly communicate that its negotiating committee lacked the authority to bind the Board or that the agreement was subject to ratification, the memorandum of settlement constituted a binding agreement.

The Review Officer's order was revoked.