Employer ordered to pay wage increases to maintain pay equity; bargaining strength exception not established.
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.
Adjournment granted due to applicant counsel's medical issues; further adjournments discouraged.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, with the consent of the Pay Equity Office, due to medical issues faced by the applicant's counsel.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the lengthy history of the case and the interests of the responding employees, but warned that further adjournments would only be granted in the most compelling circumstances.
Two respondents removed from pay equity application after receiving settlement cheques.
Two respondents in a Pay Equity Act application wrote to the Tribunal requesting to be removed as parties after receiving settlement cheques from the applicant.
The Tribunal, sitting as a single-member panel under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and removed the two individuals as responding parties.
Tribunal directs parties to file objections to a non-party's request for copies of pleadings.
Counsel for employees in a separate pay equity dispute with the Toronto District School Board requested copies of the pleadings in this matter, citing similar issues.
The Tribunal directed the applicants and responding party to file any written objections to the request by November 4, 2014, failing which the Tribunal would grant the request.
Tribunal removes a responding party upon request and clarifies participation requirements for another individual.
The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal received correspondence from Karen Jackson requesting to be removed as a party, which was granted.
The Tribunal also received correspondence from Sohail Iqbal, holding a Power of Attorney for Helen Benjamin, asking to be listed as a contact.
The Tribunal directed that if Ms. Benjamin wishes to participate as a responding party, a formal response must be filed; otherwise, Mr. Iqbal should contact the applicant's counsel regarding the pay equity adjustment.
Respondent removed from proceeding after receiving settlement cheque.
The Tribunal received correspondence from a respondent, I. M. Iqbal, advising that he had received a cheque from the applicant and requesting to be removed from the list of responding parties.
The Tribunal granted the request and removed Mr. Iqbal as a responding party.
Respondent removed from Pay Equity Act application after receiving payment from the applicant.
A respondent, Dawn Gay, advised the Tribunal that she had received a cheque from the applicant and requested to be removed from the proceeding.
The Tribunal granted the request and removed her as a responding party.
Further extension of time to file response granted only on consent of the applicant.
The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal.
The respondent sought a second extension of time to file its response.
The Tribunal ruled that the extension to October 31, 2014, would be granted only if the Pay Equity Office agreed; otherwise, no further lengthy extension would be permitted.
Employer ordered to file full response to particulars pending case management hearing on motion to strike.
In a pay equity dispute, the employer requested that certain paragraphs of the applicants' particulars be struck, arguing they raised new challenges not previously before Review Services.
The employer also filed a partial response, reserving the right to respond further if the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction over the new challenges.
The applicants sought an order directing the employer to respond fully and to produce certain documents.
The Tribunal deferred the motion to strike to the upcoming case management hearing but ordered the employer to file a full response to the impugned particulars in the interim.
The applicants' request for document production was deferred as the timeframes for document exchange under the Rules of Practice had not yet expired.
Tribunal directed that respondent's incorrectly filed Form 1 be treated as a response.
The applicant, Regional Nursing Services, sought a variance of a Review Officer's pay equity order regarding employees it could not contact.
The respondent, Helen Magno, filed an unsigned Form 1 Application, which appeared to be intended as a response to the applicant's application.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that the Form 1 be treated as a response and ordered the respondent to serve a copy on the applicant's counsel.
Tribunal varied previous decision to remove two individuals from notice list due to unlocatable contact information.
The applicant requested to vary a previous decision requiring notice of the proceeding to be given to two individuals.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant made all reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to locate their contact information.
The Tribunal varied its previous decision to remove the two individuals from the notice list.
Tribunal grants respondent an extension to June 23, 2014 to file its response.
In an application under the Pay Equity Act, the parties disagreed on the deadline for the respondent school board to file its response.
The respondent requested an extension to June 30, 2014, citing a medical leave, while the applicants consented only to June 23, 2014.
The Tribunal ordered the response to be filed by June 23, 2014, finding this provided sufficient time and allowed the applicants' counsel to consult with their clients before the end of the school year.
Tribunal grants request for summonses but denies union's request to waive conduct money requirement.
The union requested two signed Summons to Witness in blank and a waiver of the requirement to pay conduct money, arguing the witnesses would be paid their regular wages by the employer.
The Tribunal granted the request for the summonses but denied the request to waive the conduct money requirement, noting the Rules of Civil Procedure do not exempt parties from paying conduct money merely because witnesses may be paid their wages.
Employer's request to redact pay equity adjustment amounts from application materials served on employees denied.
The applicant employer sought a variance of a Pay Equity Office order and requested relief from the Tribunal's Rule 14 requirement to serve the complete application on respondent employees.
The employer argued that Schedule A, which listed all employees and their specific pay equity adjustment entitlements, contained private information and should be redacted so each employee only saw their own entitlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no statutory authority or prejudice to the employer that would justify recognizing a privacy interest in the dollar amounts owed under a proxy pay equity plan, distinguishing prior case law regarding actual salary disclosure.
Motion to dismiss pay equity application for failure to disclose a prima facie case denied.
The respondent school board brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's pay equity application for failure to disclose a prima facie case.
The Tribunal had previously questioned its jurisdiction over the application, but upon receiving further information from the Pay Equity Office, confirmed the application was properly before it.
Applying its reasoning from a previous decision involving similar applications, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis.
Pay Equity Act applications closed following settlement between the parties.
The parties to two cross-applications under the Pay Equity Act advised the Tribunal that the matters had been settled.
The Tribunal noted that under section 25.1 of the Act, a settlement is binding and can be the subject of a complaint if not complied with.
Having regard to the settlement, the Tribunal closed its files.
Time for delivery of applicants' additional particulars extended.
The applicants requested an extension of time to deliver additional particulars.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to May 9, 2014.
Extension of time granted for filing submissions.
The applicant requested an extension of time to file and deliver submissions.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to April 28, 2014.
Employer's motion to dismiss pay equity complaints denied; document production ordered for job evaluation comparisons.
The applicants, non-union employees in various female job classes, challenged the employer's posted pay equity plan, alleging their jobs were not accurately or reasonably evaluated.
The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the applications for failure to disclose a prima facie breach of the Pay Equity Act and for delay.
The Tribunal dismissed the employer's motions, finding the applications disclosed a prima facie case.
The Tribunal also ruled that the applicants were limited to challenging the sub-factors they had raised at Review Services, but ordered the employer to produce job evaluation documents for other job classes in relevant similar value groups to allow the applicants to particularize their claims.
Application to enforce pay equity settlement dismissed; employer correctly applied aggregate wage adjustments.
The union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act to enforce a settlement, arguing that pay equity adjustments should have been added to wage rates prior to the application of general wage percentage increases from the collective agreement.
The Tribunal found that the settlement was clear and unambiguous, and did not dictate the complex calculation method proposed by the union.
The Tribunal concluded that the employer had appropriately implemented the terms of the settlement by paying the adjustments as an aggregate sum, and dismissed the application.