Patricia E. DeGuire

The employer requested a reconsideration of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision dated April 28, 2008, seeking clarification on the effective date and calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments for the Casual Driver job class.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration, amending its previous order to correct the effective date of the retroactive adjustments from January 1, 1994, to April 1, 2003.

The Tribunal also clarified that the retroactive adjustment of $1.36 per hour should be calculated less any monies already paid to the Casual Driver job class.

The Pay Equity Office brought an application to enforce a review officer's order requiring the employer to post a pay equity plan and make retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The employer failed to respond to the application or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the employer had breached its undertakings and failed to comply with the order.

The Tribunal confirmed the review officer's order and directed the employer to post the plan and commence retroactive payments, noting that the order could be filed with the Superior Court of Justice for enforcement.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's order directing it to prepare and post a pay equity plan retroactive to January 1, 1994, using the proxy method of comparison.

The employer argued it had already complied by posting a one-page document in 1996 and paying out 1% of payroll annually.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the employer's purported plan did not meet the mandatory requirements of section 21.18(2) of the Pay Equity Act, as it failed to properly identify comparator job classes, describe a gender-neutral comparison system, or set out the value of work performed.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's order and directed the employer to prepare, post, and implement a compliant pay equity plan retroactive to 1994, and to pay any required adjustments with interest.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding the employer's failure to comply with a review officer's order to post and implement a pay equity plan and pay adjustments.

The employer admitted non-compliance, citing a lack of funding.

The Tribunal found that an inability to fund pay equity is not a lawful excuse for failing to implement it.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to post the plan, calculate adjustments, and pay the required amounts with interest.

The Applicant employer brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear a pay equity complaint on the basis that the Respondents were former employees when they filed the complaint.

The Applicant also sought a determination that the Respondents should present their case first and bear the onus of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant voluntarily requested a hearing under subsection 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal further held that the Respondents' statutory rights under the Act survived the termination of their employment.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that the Applicant must proceed first and bears the onus of proof, as it is the party challenging the Review Officer's order.

The Applicant opposed the Tribunal's decision to deal with two preliminary issues by written hearing, arguing that the issues were jurisdictional and required an oral hearing under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal held that the issues—whether the respondents were employees when they filed their complaint and the order of proceedings—were procedural in nature.

Finding no good reason to hold an oral hearing, the Tribunal directed that the preliminary issues be dealt with by written submissions.

The Applicant brought an application concerning a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity for the Pool Deck Supervisor job class.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to pursue a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be terminated if not brought back for a hearing within one year.

Ford Motor Company of Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to amend its pay equity plan due to alleged changed circumstances at its Windsor establishment.

The Tribunal found that Ford failed to establish a prima facie case that its restructuring did not affect the pay equity plan.

However, the Tribunal also found the Review Officer's Order too vague to confirm, revoke, or vary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested, with the consent of the respondent, that the matter be adjourned sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a party requests it be scheduled for a hearing.

The Applicant, a former Records Clerk, challenged a Review Officer's Order regarding the pay equity plan negotiated between her union and the Employer.

She alleged her position was not appropriately evaluated and was matched with the wrong male comparator.

The Respondents brought a motion to dismiss the Application on the basis that the Applicant lacked status.

The Tribunal found that the pay equity plan was negotiated, executed, and posted by the Employer and the union, making it a 'deemed approved' plan binding on the Applicant.

Because the Applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the plan contravened the minimum standards of Part I of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal declined to inquire into the merits and dismissed the Application.

Costs were not awarded.

The Tribunal reviewed the Respondent's Response and found it did not conform with Rules 2.02 and 2.03.

The Tribunal directed the Respondent to file and serve a proper Response by July 15, 2002, and directed the Applicant's representative to file a Reply by July 22, 2002.

The hearing scheduled for July 24, 2002, was marked peremptory.

The Tribunal granted David Deluzio's request to withdraw the Response filed on behalf of an anonymous group of employees, having satisfied the directives from a previous decision.

The Tribunal directed the remaining respondent, Milan Podhorsky, to advise whether he adopts the positions in the withdrawn Response or to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal also issued directions to the applicant regarding a potential pre-hearing conference, continuing disclosure issues, and outstanding procedural matters.

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring an amended pay equity plan.

At a preliminary hearing, the agent for the respondent group of anonymous non-union employees sought to withdraw his Response, citing an inability to obtain instructions.

The applicant opposed the withdrawal without proper notice to the group members.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the agent could not withdraw his Response until he obtained the names of the group members from the Pay Equity Office and provided them with notice of his intention to withdraw, giving them an opportunity to appoint a new agent.

The Tribunal directed the agent to complete this process and reserved on other preliminary issues.