Pauline R. Seville

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 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 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 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.

The applicant union sought to quantify and enforce a Review Officer's order regarding retroactive pay equity adjustments owed by the respondent employer.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings.

Based on an affidavit provided by the applicant detailing the amounts owed to eleven former employees, and despite a late objection from a principal of the respondent who provided no alternative calculations, the Tribunal varied the Review Officer's order to specify the exact amounts owed and directed the respondent to pay them within 30 days.

The applicant union sought to recover pay equity adjustments owed to its members by their former employer.

After the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order, the union provided an affidavit calculating the employer's liability for eleven former employees.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to issue a final decision directing the employer to pay the calculated amounts, unless either party objected by a specified date.

The employer and the union filed applications challenging a Review Officer Order regarding the calculation of the job rate for a male comparator job class under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties disagreed on how to convert the annual salary and vacation benefit of the male comparator (Computer Technician) to an hourly rate for comparison with the female job class (ESL Instructor).

The Tribunal rejected both the union's position (which assumed all comparators received maximum vacation) and the employer's position (which ignored the value of the vacation benefit).

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the parties to calculate the total hourly compensation by properly valuing the vacation benefit based on years of service.

The applicant applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to vary a Review Officer's order that classified the single-incumbent job class of Executive Director as gender neutral.

The Tribunal found that while historical incumbency at the agency was male-dominated or neutral, sector-wide statistics from 1994 showed that 66% of Executive Directors at United Way funded agencies were women.

Giving weight to gender stereotyping in the field of work, the Tribunal varied the order to classify the position as a female-dominated job class.

Following a previous Tribunal direction, the employer and union tracked tip data for Casino Cashiers and Security Officers over nine months.

The review confirmed that the tips attributed to the job classes in the Pay Equity Plan were appropriate.

The Group of Employees objected, arguing that their tips should be deemed insignificant and not counted, as they amounted to less than 10% of their hourly rate.

The Tribunal found that the 10% cut-off was not consistently applied in the pay equity plan and that there was no basis to exclude the Casino Cashiers' tips from their job rate.

The Tribunal directed that the file be closed.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The employer and union disputed whether Electronic Pre-Press (EPP) operator positions constituted a single 'job class' under the Pay Equity Act.

Some operators received a negotiated wage rate, while others received higher 'gold-circled' rates protected from previous positions after a technological restructuring.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'job class' applies to determine if a single position constitutes multiple job classes.

Because the gold-circled employees had a different compensation schedule and range of salary rates than those earning the negotiated rate, the Tribunal concluded that the EPP operator positions did not constitute a single job class.

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.