Patricia Greenside

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 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 applicants and respondent requested a conference call to discuss whether final submissions should be in writing or oral.

The Tribunal noted that an agreement had already been reached and directed that final submissions be in writing.

The Tribunal declined to convene a conference call to decide a procedural issue that had already been agreed to and directed, unless the parties had a consensual proposal to amend the process.

The applicants requested to have their final argument done by written submissions, which the Tribunal accepted.

Due to unspecified reasons, the applicants were unable to file their submissions in accordance with the original timetable.

The Tribunal issued a decision establishing a new schedule for the filing of written submissions.

The applicants requested an extension of timelines for filing witness statements.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadlines for the applicants to file their witness statements to September 16, 2022, and for the respondent to file its responding witness statements to October 7, 2022.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions following the first day of hearing for applications under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicants completed their evidence on the first issue.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consult and provide mutually available dates for the next hearing, and ordered the respondent to file witness statements by a specified date.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act asserting that her job class, Supervisor, Financial Services, was improperly valued and compared to an inappropriate male comparator following a reorganization that added to her duties.

The respondent argued that the applicant's position was re-evaluated using a gender-neutral comparison system under a deemed approved pay equity plan, and while it scored higher, it did not elevate to a higher band.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the evaluation ignored statutory criteria or was unreasonable.

The Tribunal emphasized that deemed approved plans are given deference and that a change in one job class's duties does not open a review of the entire plan.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants in a pay equity dispute requested the production of rating notes for non-union jobs and initial ratings prepared by a consultant, arguing they were relevant to whether the jobs were evaluated in isolation.

The respondent objected, claiming the request was irrelevant, a fishing expedition, and overly broad.

The Tribunal found the documents were arguably relevant to the process of how job classes were rated.

However, the Tribunal agreed the request was overly broad and limited production to documents pertaining to job classes placed in bands 7, 8, and 9, which were the bands at issue.

The applicant filed a pay equity application alleging her position should have been included in the City's pay equity plan.

The City brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had executed a full and final release in 2013.

The applicant argued the settlement was repudiated because she did not receive a 1.9% cost of living adjustment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had elected to sue for damages in Small Claims Court rather than treat the contract as repudiated, and that the failure to pay the 1.9% adjustment did not amount to a substantial failure of performance.

The application was dismissed as barred by the release.