Pauline R. Seville

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 purchased the assets of a motel business from the predecessor employer.

A Review Officer ordered the applicant and the predecessor to be jointly and severally liable for retroactive pay equity adjustments owed to the predecessor's former employees.

The applicant sought a variance of the order, arguing it was not a successor employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the sale of business provisions in Part II of the Act only apply to public sector employers or large private sector employers with 100 or more employees.

Since the motel was a small private sector employer, the successor obligations did not apply.

The Tribunal varied the order to remove the applicant's joint and several liability.

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 applicant union sought an order requiring the employer hospital to adjust the wage grids for female job classes in its clerical bargaining unit to mirror the wage grids for male comparator job classes in its service bargaining unit, including the rate of progression through the grid.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Pay Equity Act only requires adjustments to the 'job rate' (the highest rate of compensation available to a job class) to achieve pay equity.

The Act does not mandate the equalization of entire wage grids or rates of progression below the job rate, which remain matters for collective bargaining.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which they will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

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 applicant sought to vary a Review Officer's order and attended a pre-hearing conference.

The respondents failed to attend.

The applicant requested that the respondents be denied further notice of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 43 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, and that the matter proceed by way of a written hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed both requests.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to continue providing notice to the respondents given their relatively small number, and determined that an oral hearing was necessary due to the novelty of the legal issue raised.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for a one-day hearing.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1328, sought to withdraw its application against the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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 responding party sought leave to amend its pleadings to raise an issue regarding the identification of male comparators in the parties' original pay equity plan.

The Tribunal found it could not assess the potential for prejudice without the actual language of the proposed amendment.

To avoid adjourning the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal bifurcated the proceedings, deferring the amendment request and directing the parties to first address preliminary factual and legal questions regarding the pay grids.

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 applicants, employed as Clerk 2s in the Records Search Unit, filed an application alleging their job class was incorrectly valued compared to the Clerk 1 job class.

The respondent union requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to plead material facts demonstrating that the employer and union acted unreasonably in evaluating the job classes, noting that the Act does not require wage parity between different employers or identical valuation for positions with different duties.

The application was dismissed.

The Municipality of Wawa applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's order that invalidated its 2006 amended pay equity plan.

The Tribunal heard partial evidence regarding whether changed circumstances justified the 2006 plan and whether the new plan detrimentally impacted employees.

Finding it lacked sufficient evidence to determine the potential detrimental impacts and the proper valuation of a specific job class, the Tribunal directed the Municipality to produce complete job descriptions and evaluation documents and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule further hearing dates.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act objecting to a Review Officer's Order.

At a pre-hearing conference, the applicant indicated it would seek an adjournment but failed to file any correspondence.

As no response was filed and the applicant failed to communicate further, the Tribunal adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no party sought to proceed by June 30, 2010.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal varied its decision dated December 18, 2009, which had directed the responding party to pay pay equity adjustments to 11 former employees.

The Tribunal acknowledged it had failed to consider affidavit evidence identifying a twelfth employee owed adjustments.

The Tribunal varied the Review Officer's Order to direct the responding party to pay $19,303.13 in trust for the twelfth employee, subject to post-judgment interest.