Patrick Kelly

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal for enforcement of a Review Officer's Order.

The Tribunal previously made orders against the employer.

The employer requested reconsideration to alter one of the orders regarding newspaper advertisements for former employees.

The union did not oppose, and the Pay Equity Office did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration and amended the order to specify the newspapers and extend the timeline for placing the advertisements.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file and deliver its reply to the response filed by the union.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline for both the applicant and the responding party to file their replies to August 28, 2015.

The applicant filed applications under the Pay Equity Act challenging Review Officer Orders regarding pay equity adjustments for unionized and non-union employees.

The applicant contended that the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) was the true employer, but failed to serve the Ministry.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal ordered the applicant to serve the Ministry with the applications and related documents.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to mail the application and notice to any former non-union employees eligible for the pay equity adjustments.

The Pay Equity Office brought a reference under subsection 24(5.2) of the Pay Equity Act seeking enforcement of a Review Officer's Order against the employer.

The Tribunal had previously terminated the employer's application under subsection 24(6) and directed the employer to provide written submissions as to why the enforcement remedies should not be granted.

The employer failed to provide any submissions.

The Tribunal granted the Pay Equity Office's application, confirming that the employer failed to implement pay equity, and ordered the employer to comply with a series of remedial steps, including posting the decision, evaluating job classes, calculating differences, and paying outstanding pay equity adjustments.

The union requested clarification and reconsideration of a previous Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal order requiring the employer to pay wage increases to female job classes, alleging the employer failed to pay certain classes it unilaterally reclassified as male or gender-neutral.

The union also sought a finding that the employer violated the order and requested a penalty.

The Tribunal treated the correspondence as an application for reconsideration and directed the employer to file a response within ten days, noting the matter would likely be decided without an oral hearing.

The applicant requested an extension of time to provide written submissions in response to submissions delivered by Stephen Huff.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the applicant an extension until July 20, 2015.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) sought enforcement of an order against the employer, while the employer brought a separate application challenging the order on the basis that it employed fewer than ten employees and was exempt from the Pay Equity Act.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal directed the employer to post a notice of its application in the workplace and confirm compliance.

The employer failed to confirm posting.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the employer's application.

As the employer never claimed to have complied with the PEO's order, the Tribunal gave the employer a final deadline to provide written submissions as to why the PEO's requested enforcement remedies should not be granted.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction regarding a potential dispute over the delivery of written submissions by the respondent's representative.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise by July 13, 2015, if it took issue with the delivery of the submissions or the respondent's right to rely on them at the hearing.

The Pay Equity Office sought enforcement of an order against the employer, while the employer brought a companion application challenging the order on the basis that it employed fewer than ten employees and was not subject to the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held the enforcement application in abeyance pending the determination of the employer's application.

As the original order resulted from an audit rather than an individual complaint, the Tribunal directed the employer to post copies of the order, the application, and the Tribunal's decision in the workplace to provide notice to its employees before the matter could proceed.

The employer sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision.

On agreement of the employer and the union, the Tribunal extended the time for the union and the Pay Equity Office to file their responses to the reconsideration request until May 7, 2015.

The applicant requested an extension of time to comply with a previous Tribunal direction to file and deliver a proposed pay equity plan.

The Tribunal granted the extension and adjusted the deadlines for the responding party employees' response submissions and the applicant's reply submissions.

The applicant employer sought to present a motion for orders facilitating the preparation and posting of a pay equity plan, or alternatively revoking a Review Officer's order.

Due to the sudden unavailability of the applicant's counsel, the oral hearing was adjourned.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the applicant to provide a copy of the proposed pay equity plan to the respondent employees and the Tribunal, and set a schedule for the respondents to file written submissions regarding the applicant's motion record and the proposed plan, followed by a scheduled hearing date.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer.

The employer conceded non-compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay retroactive pay equity adjustments with interest, adjust job rates, publish notices in local newspapers for former employees, and post the decision in the workplace.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order to the Tribunal for enforcement, and the employer brought an application objecting to the same Order.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the employer's application.

As the employer conceded non-compliance and the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of the Order on a reference, the Tribunal invited the employer and the union to make written submissions on why the remedies sought by the Pay Equity Office should not be granted.

The applicant employer sought to stay the enforcement of a Review Officer's Order requiring pay equity adjustments, arguing it lacked the financial means to comply due to insufficient provincial funding.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis and to deny standing to numerous "interested parties" named by the applicant.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the interested parties did not have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome and declined to grant them intervener status.

The Tribunal also granted the union's motion to dismiss the application, reaffirming that lack of funding is not a defense to an employer's statutory obligation to comply with a pay equity plan or the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant sought a variance of a Review Officer's Order directing it to pay pay equity adjustments to 767 individuals.

The applicant argued that individuals who could not be located, who had settled, or who had not responded should be removed from the Order's schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the Order and had effectively done so.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no compelling purpose to vary or revoke the Order and terminated the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die as the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, adjourning the matter for 30 days, after which it would be considered abandoned if no party requested it to proceed.

The scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its counsel experienced a sudden medical condition requiring immediate bed rest.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that it would be unreasonable to expect another lawyer in the firm's small employment and labour section to take carriage of the matter on such short notice.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 23 and 27, 2015, due to their counsel's sudden medical condition requiring immediate bed rest.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the medical emergency constituted extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment for the February 23 hearing date and reserved its decision regarding the February 27 date pending a review of submitted hearing materials.

The employer and the union signed a pay equity plan in 2006 that tied the wages of female-dominated library job classes to male-dominated job classes in a separate municipal bargaining unit.

Subsequent interest arbitration awards for the municipal unit created a wage gap between the library employees and their comparators.

The employer argued that the pay equity plan capped retroactive adjustments and that any wage gap was permitted under the 'bargaining strength' exception in subsection 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the pay equity plan did not cap adjustments and that the employer failed to prove the wage gap resulted from differences in bargaining strength.

The employer was ordered to pay the corresponding percentage wage increases to the female job classes.