Pauline R. Seville

The applicant School Board objected to a Review Officer's order calculating the respondent's retroactive pay equity adjustment.

The Review Officer had awarded the maximum adjustment for each year of service, regardless of the respondent's actual salary or grid placement.

The Tribunal found that the School Board's approach of pro-rating the adjustment to maintain the proportional relationship among salary rates was permissible under the Pay Equity Act.

However, the Tribunal recalculated the amount owing based on the respondent's actual paid salary relative to the job rate, directing the School Board to pay the outstanding balance with interest.

The Union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's decision that a negotiated change in the collective agreement did not contravene the Pay Equity Act.

The change increased the threshold for part-time employees to receive overtime pay, aligning it with full-time employees.

The Employer argued the Application should be dismissed without a hearing as no prima facie breach was pleaded.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the Union did not assert a benefit was lost by a female job class compared to a male job class comparator, but merely that part-time employees took home less pay.

The Application was dismissed.

The employer objected to a Review Officer's order directing it to prepare and post a proxy pay equity plan retroactive to January 1, 1994, claiming it had already satisfied its obligations under the Pay Equity Act in 1996.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal noted that the proxy provisions were repealed between 1995 and 1997, making it unclear why a proxy plan would have been prepared in 1996.

The Tribunal directed the employer to provide further submissions and documentation clarifying when it prepared its plan and how it achieved pay equity before providing notice to affected employees.

The Tribunal previously directed Gian Daycare Limited to file written submissions explaining why its application should not be dismissed and why it should not be ordered to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

Gian failed to file any submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Gian's application and granted the Pay Equity Commission's application, directing Gian to comply with the Review Officer's Order.

The Union applied to appeal a Review Officer's decision finding no contravention of the Pay Equity Act.

The dispute centered on a negotiated collective agreement amendment that increased the overtime threshold for part-time employees from 24 to 35 hours, aligning it with full-time employees.

The Employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal noted its initial impression that the application did not plead a prima facie contravention, as not every compensation reduction constitutes a breach of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file further submissions before making a final determination on the dismissal request.

The applicant union challenged a Review Officer's order, alleging the employer failed to implement a 1990 Pay Equity Plan for part-time employees.

The employer brought a non-suit motion, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case that the parties had ever negotiated or agreed to include part-time positions in the same job class as full-time positions.

The Tribunal found that the statutory criteria for a single job class were not met, as part-time and full-time positions had different compensation schedules and recruitment methods.

The non-suit motion was granted, the application dismissed, and the Review Officer's order to negotiate part-time job classes was confirmed.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter alleging the employer failed to comply with an order to prepare and post a pay equity plan and make required payments.

The parties reached an agreement to pay out all outstanding pay equity adjustments on an instalment basis by March 1, 2006.

The Office requested an extended adjournment until March 15, 2006, to allow for the completion of these payments.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the agreement of the interested parties, and directed the employer to post the decision in the workplace.

The Employer brought an Application regarding a Review Officer's Order requiring it to negotiate a pay equity plan using the proxy method.

The Employer argued it was not a public sector employer under Regulation 37/02.

The Tribunal struck paragraphs of the Application alleging bias by the Review Officer, noting its hearings are de novo.

The Tribunal declined to defer the hearing pending a judicial review in another case and directed the parties to provide further submissions on the legal effect of Regulation 37/02 and the Union's claim that the regulation is ultra vires.

A group of employees (Clerk 3s) applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, complaining that a pay equity adjustment given to Clerk 4s created an unfair wage gap.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Pay Equity Act does not require comparable female job classes to be paid the same, but rather requires matching female to male job classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants failed to plead material facts showing that the former union and employer acted unreasonably in evaluating the job classes.

The Tribunal indicated its intention to dismiss the application but allowed the applicants an opportunity to file further submissions.

The Pay Equity Office brought an application alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan using the proxy method.

The employer did not respond or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the employer in non-compliance and ordered it to prepare and post the plan, and to make required retroactive adjustments.

The Tribunal declined the Office's request to add an order for interest, noting that a compliance referral is not the appropriate forum to vary the original order's remedies, and the employer had no notice of the claim for interest.

The employer appealed a Review Officer's Order concerning the termination of the respondent and the posting of a pay equity plan.

The parties resolved the issues personal to the respondent and requested a sine die adjournment.

The Tribunal granted a 6-month adjournment, rather than the standard 1-year period, to allow the employer time to consider the remaining issues regarding the pay equity plan while ensuring timely resolution.

The Tribunal also noted that notice to affected employees would be required if the matter proceeds.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, alleging that the employer and union failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

The order required the posting of a pay equity plan, adjustment of job rates, and retroactive payments.

Neither the employer nor the union responded to the referral.

The Tribunal found that the order had not been complied with and ordered the employer and union to comply.

The applicant requested an extension of time to serve and file an amended application, citing newly retained counsel and the complexity of the matter.

The respondent agreed to a short extension.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to March 21, 2003, balancing the need for new counsel to familiarize themselves with the file against the need to avoid significant delay.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed an application and found it did not plead a prima facie case or conform to Rule 12(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file an amended application by a peremptory date, failing which the application may be dismissed.

Ford Motor Company of Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to amend its pay equity plan due to alleged changed circumstances at its Windsor establishment.

The Tribunal found that Ford failed to establish a prima facie case that its restructuring did not affect the pay equity plan.

However, the Tribunal also found the Review Officer's Order too vague to confirm, revoke, or vary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, The Child's Place, requested an adjournment sine die of its application regarding a Review Officer's order to make pay equity adjustments.

The applicant advised it was in the process of implementing the order and intended to satisfy its pay equity obligations prior to its upcoming dissolution.

The Crown consented to the request, and no other parties responded.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment sine die, noting that the proceeding would be terminated if no party sought to bring the matter back on for hearing within one year.

The applicant employer sought to review a Review Officer's Order which found it had not made required pay equity adjustments under its posted 1995 pay equity plans.

The employer argued it had implemented new wage grids in 1996 that provided greater benefits and addressed internal equity.

The Tribunal found that the 1996 re-evaluation was done outside the requirements of the Pay Equity Act and did not relieve the employer of its obligation to pay the adjustments required by the 1995 plans.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's Order and directed the employer to calculate and pay the outstanding adjustments with interest.

The Applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding an Order of a Review Officer.

The Tribunal previously directed the Applicant to file further submissions to establish a prima facie case regarding the gender incumbency of the Educational Assistant job class and its request that the Ministry of Community and Social Services fund its pay equity liabilities.

The Applicant failed to file further submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to plead a prima facie case and confirmed the Review Officer's Order.

The applicant employer sought to adjourn pay equity proceedings pending the outcome of another case regarding Crown funding liability.

The Tribunal declined the adjournment.

The Tribunal also ruled that the alleged sale of the applicant's business to a third party was not a necessary issue in this proceeding, as the central issue was the applicant's failure to make pay equity adjustments prior to the alleged sale.

The third party was deemed not an interested party.

The matter was directed to proceed to an oral hearing on the issue of Crown liability.

The Applicant, a former Records Clerk, challenged a Review Officer's Order regarding the pay equity plan negotiated between her union and the Employer.

She alleged her position was not appropriately evaluated and was matched with the wrong male comparator.

The Respondents brought a motion to dismiss the Application on the basis that the Applicant lacked status.

The Tribunal found that the pay equity plan was negotiated, executed, and posted by the Employer and the union, making it a 'deemed approved' plan binding on the Applicant.

Because the Applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the plan contravened the minimum standards of Part I of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal declined to inquire into the merits and dismissed the Application.

Costs were not awarded.