Pauline R. Seville

The applicant failed to contact the Registrar to obtain a hearing date following a previous decision.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die until November 1, 2009, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party sought to proceed by that date.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act seeking to stay or set aside an order of a review officer regarding outstanding pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that the union was estopped from claiming annual payments, that the complaint was vexatious, and that the delay in issuing the order violated section 11 of the Charter.

The union responded that the application failed to make out a prima facie case and noted approximately $12,000 in outstanding payments.

The Tribunal directed the employer to file submissions showing cause as to why the application should not be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application as an abuse of process.

The underlying application attempted to re-litigate the gender predominance of a single-incumbent position, which had already been determined in an earlier proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case using submissions he had the opportunity to make prior to the dismissal.

The employer requested a reconsideration of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision dated April 28, 2008, seeking clarification on the effective date and calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments for the Casual Driver job class.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration, amending its previous order to correct the effective date of the retroactive adjustments from January 1, 1994, to April 1, 2003.

The Tribunal also clarified that the retroactive adjustment of $1.36 per hour should be calculated less any monies already paid to the Casual Driver job class.

The parties sought a preliminary determination on the interpretation of subsections 6(4) and 6(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The union argued that if no male comparator is found within the inside bargaining unit, the female job class must be compared to a male comparator in the outside bargaining unit before looking establishment-wide.

The tribunal agreed with the review officer and the employer, holding that subsection 6(4) only requires comparison within the same bargaining unit, and if no comparator is found, subsection 6(5) permits comparison throughout the establishment.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction to the applicant.

Having previously directed the applicant to address a preliminary question regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Tribunal found it may have jurisdiction but raised concerns about the applicant's standing as a former employee and whether the application constitutes an abuse of process.

The applicant was directed to file written submissions addressing these concerns.

The applicant union sought to recover retroactive pay equity adjustments on behalf of its members from their former employer.

Because the union could not determine the exact amounts owed to individual employees, it requested that the Tribunal summons the employer's principal to attend a hearing with the necessary documents.

The Tribunal directed the union to obtain a signed summons from the Registrar, complete it, and serve it personally on the principal in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The employer applied to challenge a Review Officer's Order finding it had contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the employer's 2002 pay equity plan was the deemed approved plan and that subsequent changes, including the introduction of salary scales, did not constitute 'changed circumstances' justifying a new plan.

The Tribunal further held that the employer's salary scales violated the Act by setting steps below the pay equity adjusted wage rate or job rate.

The Tribunal varied the Review Officer's Order, directing the employer to make retroactive adjustments, pay wage gaps, and properly distribute the mandatory 1% of payroll for pay equity adjustments.

The employer and union challenged a Review Office Order regarding their negotiated pay equity plan.

The central issue was whether tips should be included in the calculation of 'compensation' for determining the 'job rate' of Casino Cashiers under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that tips can be included in compensation as they are ascertainable.

However, the Tribunal found that the process used by the employer and union to estimate the tip rate was unreasonable because they failed to use available, accurate tracking methods.

The Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's Order and directed prospective tip tracking for the Casino Cashiers and their male comparator group to accurately determine the tip rate.

The Employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order and sought a declaration that pay equity had been achieved for certain job classes.

During the hearing on the merits, the Employer's witness testified about a board motion increasing the hourly wage of the Executive Director's job class.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal directed the Employer to provide a certified copy of the official minutes of the Board meeting or an affidavit, and to clarify whether the increase was a one-time event or an annual occurrence.

The applicant employer filed an application objecting to a Review Officer's order directing it to implement pay equity and pay interest on any adjustments.

The employer sought more time to comply and argued the Review Officer lacked jurisdiction to order interest.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die to allow the employer to complete the required tasks, noting it was premature to address the interest issue until the principal amount of any adjustments was determined.

The employer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed a Review Officer's order requiring the preparation and posting of a pay equity plan.

The employer argued that the Tribunal breached the principles of natural justice by allegedly declining to receive evidence from several witnesses at the original hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the employer's counsel had chosen not to call the witnesses and that the employer was not denied a fair hearing.

The employer failed to meet any of the established factors for reconsideration.

The applicant, a Communication Supervisor, applied to the Tribunal to review a Review Officer's decision finding no contravention of the Pay Equity Act by the employer and union.

The applicant alleged that her new position should have been evaluated consistently with an eliminated male-dominated position, and raised issues regarding banding and delayed re-evaluation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of a contravention, as the Act does not require historical consistency in job evaluations or internal consistency between female job classes.

The Belleville Police Services Board applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning a wage gap.

The parties submitted a Pay Equity Agreement settling the matter.

The Tribunal found the parties had settled the matter pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, requiring no further intervention.

The applicant, a Communication Supervisor, filed an application challenging a Review Officer's decision regarding the evaluation of her position under the Pay Equity Act.

She argued her position should have received at least as many points as the eliminated Emergency Response Officer position.

The employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the Act does not require new positions to be evaluated consistently with eliminated ones.

The Tribunal agreed with the employer's interpretation of the Act but allowed the applicant an opportunity to make further submissions before deciding whether to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's order directing it to prepare and post a pay equity plan retroactive to January 1, 1994, using the proxy method of comparison.

The employer argued it had already complied by posting a one-page document in 1996 and paying out 1% of payroll annually.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the employer's purported plan did not meet the mandatory requirements of section 21.18(2) of the Pay Equity Act, as it failed to properly identify comparator job classes, describe a gender-neutral comparison system, or set out the value of work performed.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's order and directed the employer to prepare, post, and implement a compliant pay equity plan retroactive to 1994, and to pay any required adjustments with interest.

The employer requested an extension of time to comply with a Review Officer's order, which the Tribunal had previously directed it to comply with in a final decision.

The Pay Equity Office opposed the request, noting the employer's history of delaying implementation.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider its final decision and refused to extend the time for compliance, warning the employer that failure to comply could result in enforcement proceedings in court.

The applicant employer sought to challenge an Order of a Review Officer which determined that the employer failed to establish and maintain pay equity as required by the Pay Equity Act.

The employer asserted that its corporate policy statement on equal opportunity and pay equity satisfied its obligations.

The Tribunal found that the employer's policy was not a substitute for the specific requirements of the Act, such as job comparisons and pay adjustments.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had not made out a prima facie case, but provided the employer with a further opportunity to make submissions before dismissing the application.

The applicant employer filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal challenging a Review Officer's order to make pay equity adjustments for three female job classes.

The employer claimed the job classes were over-evaluated by mistake but provided no substantiating information.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to amend its application to comply with Rule 12 of the Rules of Practice by pleading material facts and providing details of the alleged over-evaluation.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to identify and serve the amended application on all current and former incumbents of the affected positions, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The employer applied to challenge a Review Officer's order concluding it failed to establish and maintain pay equity under s. 7(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office requested an extension of time to determine whether it would seek standing to intervene, noting it is not a statutory respondent unless it makes a referral.

The Tribunal agreed that the Office must seek standing to participate and granted the extension, observing that this is the first case addressing the pay equity obligations of a small employer exempt from Part II of the Act.