Patrick Kelly

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Pay Equity Commission brought an application against Gian Daycare Limited and Faroogh Mahmoodi.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal ordered the application adjourned sine die for a period not exceeding one month.

If no party requests to proceed within that time, the application will be deemed terminated.

The applicant filed an application under s. 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed the respondents to explain why they should not be ordered to negotiate and post a pay equity plan within six months.

The respondents argued an order was unnecessary as they were already negotiating a plan and had signed a Joint Terms of Reference, committing to post a plan by December 31, 2010.

The Tribunal found the Terms of Reference did not fully address all statutory elements and that a plan was long overdue.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to continue negotiating and directed the employer to post the agreed pay equity plan by June 30, 2010.