Pauline R. Seville

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.

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.

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 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.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that her job was improperly valued and that no pay equity plan was ever posted in the workplace.

The responding employer and union argued the application was premature because they were currently negotiating a new pay equity plan, and that the applicant's claims were barred by previous minutes of settlement.

The Tribunal found that the settlement preserved the applicant's right to seek a retroactive pay equity adjustment.

The Tribunal also found that the historical documents relied upon by the respondents did not constitute a compliant pay equity plan, and the current terms of reference did not guarantee a timely plan.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed the respondents to show cause why they should not be ordered to negotiate and post a compliant pay equity plan within six months.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the application sine die for a period of three months.

The Tribunal ordered that unless the applicant seeks to proceed within that time, the application will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant union challenged the respondent school board's method of implementing pay equity adjustments for female job classes with multi-step pay grids.

The school board had pro-rated the adjustments at each step based on the relationship between the step rate and the maximum job rate.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that section 9(3) of the Pay Equity Act precludes pro-rated adjustments for multi-step pay grids attaching to female job classes capable of occupation by multiple incumbents.

The Tribunal directed that each step of the pay grid must be adjusted by an equal dollar amount to preserve internal arithmetic relativity and avoid partial pay equity.

The parties requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 22, 2009, to gather evidence.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die until December 31, 2009.

The Tribunal ordered the adjournment on consent, noting that if no party requests to proceed by that date, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The Employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's Order that found its 1995 Pay Equity Plan non-compliant.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to provide written notice of the application to all affected past and present employees by posting the notice in the workplace and mailing it to former employees, pursuant to section 29(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The parties advised the Tribunal they were working on an agreed statement of facts but failed to provide it.

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 applicant employer sought to stay or set aside an order of a review officer requiring it to make pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that it lacked government funding, that the union was estopped from claiming payments due to a prior settlement with the government, that the union's complaint was vexatious, and that a 29-month delay in the investigation warranted a stay.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to make out a prima facie case, finding that lack of funding does not relieve an employer of its statutory obligations, the elements of estoppel were not met, the complaint was not vexatious, and the delay did not cause prejudice.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, and the respondent day care centre brought a related application.

Following a pre-hearing consultation, the parties failed to advise the Tribunal whether they wanted hearing dates set.

The Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die for a period not exceeding six months, noting that the matters would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within that time.

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

The parties previously advised the Tribunal that they were attempting to settle the matter and requested that no further hearing dates be set.

As there had been no activity on the file since that time, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal noted that there had been no activity on the application for almost three years.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of the status of the matter and whether it intended to pursue the application by May 30, 2009, failing which the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act in October 2006.

Following an adjournment in December 2007, there was no activity on the file.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise on the status of the matter by May 30, 2009, failing which the application would be deemed terminated without further notice.