Pauline R. Seville

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal provided directions on how to implement its previous pay equity decision regarding Communication Operators and their male comparators, Mechanical Technicians.

The Tribunal directed that the hourly wage rate for Communication Operators be calculated by dividing the comparator's annual salary by 2080 hours, and their annual salary be determined by multiplying that hourly rate by 2184 hours.

The resulting annual salary is to be paid in equal instalments using the employer's 'pay smoothing' practice.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion to strike the applicant nursing home's pleadings, arguing it failed to establish a prima facie case regarding abuse of process, deemed approval of its non-union pay equity plan, and compliance with the proxy provisions of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal assumed the applicant's pleaded facts to be true and provable for the purpose of the motion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of a nine-year delay by the complainant and a further two-year delay by the Commission could arguably constitute an abuse of process.

Furthermore, the applicant's pleadings regarding the posting of its plan and the lack of objections were sufficient to make out a prima facie case of a deemed approved plan.

The PEO's motion to dismiss the application was dismissed.

The applicant and one of the responding parties, Longina Frydrych, reached an agreement.

Having regard to this agreement, the Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of one year.

The Tribunal noted that unless a party requests the matter be scheduled for a hearing within that period, it will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant, Ontario Nurses' Association, requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act against the Municipality of Chatham Kent.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal decide the application based on written submissions exchanged with one respondent, pursuant to a pre-hearing conference memorandum.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that four additional respondents had subsequently intervened and were not bound by the memorandum.

The Tribunal directed all parties to attend the scheduled hearing prepared to lead evidence and proceed with the application in its entirety, as there was no agreement on facts or procedure among all parties.

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.

The employer filed an application under the Pay Equity Act seeking to set aside orders made by a Review Officer.

The Tribunal previously directed the employer to give notice to affected employees, affording them an opportunity to respond.

Four employees filed responses, but only two delivered them to the other parties.

The Tribunal enclosed all responses with its decision and directed any party wishing to file a Reply to do so by September 1, 2011.

The applicant requested a 60-day extension to comply with the Tribunal's previous order dated July 15, 2011, citing practical difficulties.

The Tribunal granted the request and extended the compliance deadline to October 17, 2011.

The applicant, a non-profit organization funded by the Ministry of Health, sought to rescind a 2003 Order declaring it a 'seeking employer' under the proxy provisions of the Pay Equity Act, arguing it was not a public sector employer.

Alternatively, it sought to vary a 2010 Order directing it to pay retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant did not fit within the statutory definition of a public sector employer, it had voluntarily posted a pay equity plan using the proxy methodology and received funding for it.

The plan became deemed approved and binding on the employer and employees.

The Tribunal declined to rescind the 2003 Order but varied the 2010 Order to reflect the correct outstanding liability of $753,507.03.

The Township of McGarry brought an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity.

The application was unopposed after the complaining employee resolved her issues and withdrew.

Based on affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found that the Township had not failed to maintain pay equity prior to April 28, 2008, and that the values assigned to job classes by the joint job evaluation committee were reasonable.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded, rendering the Pay Equity Office's compliance application moot.

The employer requested an extension of time to mail a Notice to Employees to former employees due to a recent postal strike/lockout.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to the first day Canada Post resumed operations.

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 employer requested an amendment to a Tribunal direction requiring it to mail a Notice to Employees to all affected former employees, arguing that manually searching for the addresses of 400 former employees not in its computerized system would be overly burdensome.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that natural justice requires all affected employees to be notified so they are bound by the outcome of the successor rights proceeding.

However, the Tribunal extended the deadline for compliance from 15 to 60 days.

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 Tribunal issued a decision to correct a clerical error in the Notice to Employees enclosed with an earlier decision.

The date for filing a response was corrected to May 16, 2011, and an Amended Notice to Employees was provided.

The applicant employer and respondent union consented to the Tribunal resolving their outstanding disputes regarding a Pay Equity Plan based on filed materials.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to execute a Pay Equity Plan incorporating agreed-upon job class bands, male comparators, and retroactive adjustment dates as set out in an appendix.

The Order of the Review Officer was varied accordingly.

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 Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions ahead of a hearing scheduled for March 25, 2011.

The applicant was directed to file its statement of issues, position, facts, witness list, and documents within 15 days.

The respondent was directed to file its response within 10 days thereafter, and the applicant was given 5 days to file a reply.

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.