Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The applicant, Regional Nursing Services, requested to withdraw its application.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal acknowledged the correspondence from the applicant's counsel and ordered the application withdrawn.
Employers' motion to estop union from advancing pay equity arguments based on a Letter of Understanding dismissed.
The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union was estopped from advancing the argument that proxy pay equity plans applied to retirement home employees, relying on a 2004 Letter of Understanding.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Letter of Understanding merely suspended the union's pursuit of pay equity adjustments pending the final legal outcome of a related case, and did not restrict the legal arguments the union could subsequently raise.
Tribunal permitted parties to alter submission exchange dates by agreement ahead of a preliminary motion.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural decision regarding an application to review an Order of a Review Officer.
The Tribunal permitted the parties to deviate by agreement from the previously established dates for the exchange of submissions concerning an upcoming preliminary motion.
Employer permitted to use 150-point band methodology in non-union pay equity plan.
The applicant employer sought to vary two orders of a Review Officer regarding its non-union pay equity plan.
The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a plan using a 50-point band methodology and to search for unionized male comparators for unmatched non-union female job classes.
The employer developed an alternative plan using 150-point bands, which captured more female job classes for adjustments and avoided the complications of cross-bargaining unit comparisons.
The Tribunal found that the employer's chosen banding methodology was reasonable, not motivated by an attempt to avoid obligations, and consistent with the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal varied the orders, permitting the employer to post its 150-point band plan.
Tribunal issued procedural directions for scheduling and filing materials regarding a preliminary motion to rescind.
The applicant employer sought to rescind an Order of a Review Officer under the Pay Equity Act, bringing a preliminary motion based on alleged delay and abuse of process.
The Pay Equity Office brought a cross-motion to strike those portions of the application.
The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the filing of motion materials, responses, and reply submissions, and scheduled a hearing to deal with the preliminary motions and any related evidentiary disputes.
Tribunal directed respondents to file responses to pay equity application by specified deadline.
The applicant filed an employee application under section 22 of the Pay Equity Act.
After the applicant complied with a previous direction to provide a copy of the Review Officer's decision, the respondents had not yet filed their responses.
The Tribunal directed the respondents to file their responses by May 6, 2011, and specifically requested they address the evaluation of the applicant's job class, the existence of the comparator male job class, and the applicant's claim for proportional value assessment.
Union's request for a teleconference regarding pay equity compliance denied as premature.
The union requested a teleconference regarding the employer's alleged failure to communicate its progress in achieving pay equity, as ordered in a previous decision.
The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that the 90-day compliance period had not yet expired.
The union may renew its request if the employer fails to comply after the period expires.
Tribunal maintained hearing date to decide preliminary issues rather than converting to a pre-hearing conference.
The applicant and the Pay Equity Office requested that a scheduled hearing be converted into a pre-hearing conference to deal with preliminary matters, and that the second hearing date be cancelled.
The Tribunal noted that a pre-hearing conference cannot make binding decisions.
Therefore, the Tribunal maintained the first hearing date before a full panel to decide the preliminary issues, and cancelled the second date.
The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to add a respondent who had delivered but not filed a response.
Hearing adjourned sine die for three months at applicant's request.
The applicant requested an adjournment sine die during the hearing.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal consented to adjourn the hearing sine die for a period of three months, after which the matter will be deemed terminated unless a party requests to proceed.
Employer failed to prove it achieved pay equity; prior agreement with predecessor union invalid.
The employer applied for a review of a Review Officer's order concerning its pay equity processes.
The employer argued it had achieved pay equity prior to the certification of the displacing trade union and relied on a pay equity agreement reached with the predecessor union.
The Tribunal found that the employer's initial pay equity analysis was flawed due to inadequate job content recording and failure to compare total compensation.
Consequently, the subsequent pay equity agreement with the predecessor union was based on a false premise and did not achieve pay equity.
The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's finding regarding the employer's establishment but varied the order, directing the employer to achieve pay equity within 90 days and provide all relevant information to the displacing union, without compelling the parties to negotiate the achievement of pay equity under Part I of the Act.
Pay Equity Office granted intervenor status to address challenges to its processes despite hearing having commenced.
The Pay Equity Office requested intervenor status in an application for review of a Review Officer's order.
The applicant employer objected, arguing the PEO had notice and the hearing had already taken place.
The Tribunal granted the PEO's request, finding the PEO had an interest in the challenge to its processes, did not have adequate notice of the hearing, and its participation would benefit the determination of the issues.
A fresh hearing was ordered.
Application adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The respondent requested an adjournment of the application, which the Tribunal granted.
The application was adjourned sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.
Application for reconsideration of pay equity decisions dismissed for untimeliness and lack of extraordinary circumstances.
The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of four previous Tribunal decisions concerning her pay equity complaint.
The Tribunal found that the requests regarding the three 2009 decisions were filed well beyond the 20-day time limit under Rule 81, with no reasons provided for the delay.
While the request regarding the August 2010 decision was timely, the Tribunal found no extraordinary circumstances—such as new evidence, a significant change in circumstances, or an error of law—to justify reconsideration.
The Tribunal reiterated that the applicant's concerns about the newly negotiated pay equity plan's compliance must be raised in a fresh complaint under section 22 of the Pay Equity Act.
The application for reconsideration was dismissed.
Tribunal directed a full oral hearing to resolve material disputes of fact regarding pay equity calculations.
The applicant employer filed written submissions and an accountant's report arguing its calculations of pay equity liability satisfied the Pay Equity Act.
A responding employee disagreed, maintaining the Review Officer's Order should be upheld.
The Tribunal found it could not resolve the material dispute of fact regarding the calculations and the apparent lack of a proxy pay equity plan based solely on written submissions.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a full oral hearing.
Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal files closed following settlement between the parties.
The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board filed applications with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.
The parties subsequently reached a settlement.
The Tribunal noted that under subsection 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, settlements are binding and can be the subject of a complaint if not complied with.
The Tribunal closed its files.
Employer found in non-compliance with pay equity order after failing to respond to Tribunal application.
The Pay Equity Commission referred a matter to the Tribunal, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order directing it to take steps to achieve pay equity.
The employer failed to respond to the application, attend the pre-hearing conference, or provide submissions.
The Tribunal found that the employer failed to meet its onus under the Pay Equity Act to demonstrate compliance, and confirmed the employer's non-compliance with the Order.
Request for further decision dismissed; applicant must file fresh complaint regarding new pay equity plan.
The applicant wrote to the Tribunal alleging that the pay equity plan posted by the respondents, pursuant to a previous Tribunal order, did not comply with the Pay Equity Act.
She requested a final decision in her favour.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that its previous decision was final and that any new allegations of non-compliance must be pursued by filing a fresh complaint with the Pay Equity Commission under section 22 of the Act.
Tribunal directed respondent to file written reasons if opposing request to confirm order without hearing.
The Pay Equity Commission referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.
The respondent failed to file a response or attend the pre-hearing conference.
The Commission requested that the Tribunal confirm the Review Officer's Order without a hearing.
The Tribunal directed the respondent to file written reasons by July 30, 2010, if it opposed the Commission's request to proceed without an oral hearing.
Employer ordered to pay $101,887.50 in pay equity adjustments after failing to comply with Review Officer's order.
The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, asserting that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to pay pay equity adjustments to several employees.
The employer failed to participate in the proceedings or demonstrate compliance.
The Tribunal held a written hearing and found that the employer failed to comply with the order.
The Tribunal directed the employer to pay a total of $101,887.50 to the affected employees, plus interest.
Tribunal directed responding parties to file written reasons if opposing request to proceed without hearing.
The Pay Equity Commission requested that the Tribunal issue an order without a hearing based on a Review Officer's declaration and affidavit, or alternatively schedule a hearing.
The Tribunal directed the responding parties to file written reasons by a specified date if they opposed the request to proceed without a hearing.