Pauline Seville

The Association objected to a Review Officer's decision not to order the City to increase the pay equity adjustment for the Communication Operator job class.

The parties had negotiated a Pay Equity Plan which was approved by City Council, but the City subsequently refused to execute it, arguing that the Plan's provision for an hourly wage adjustment did not reflect the parties' intention to equalize annual salaries (a 'mutual mistake').

The Tribunal held that the Plan was binding on the City, as it had been properly ratified by Council.

The Tribunal rejected the application of the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake in the labour relations context, finding that parties are bound by the objective meaning of their written agreements.

The City was ordered to pay the hourly adjustments specified in the Plan, with interest on unpaid amounts.

The applicant union brought a motion for the production of confidential reports made to the City's Board of Control and Council regarding pay equity.

The City resisted production, arguing the reports were protected by Wigmore privilege because they were dealt with in-camera.

The Tribunal ordered production, finding that the City failed to establish the fourth precondition of the Wigmore test, as the potential injury to future confidential communications did not outweigh the benefit to the administration of justice in correctly disposing of the litigation.

The applicant employer sought to vary two orders of a Review Officer regarding its non-union pay equity plan.

The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a plan using a 50-point band methodology and to search for unionized male comparators for unmatched non-union female job classes.

The employer developed an alternative plan using 150-point bands, which captured more female job classes for adjustments and avoided the complications of cross-bargaining unit comparisons.

The Tribunal found that the employer's chosen banding methodology was reasonable, not motivated by an attempt to avoid obligations, and consistent with the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal varied the orders, permitting the employer to post its 150-point band plan.

The applicant requested that an upcoming hearing be converted into a further pre-hearing conference to address outstanding preliminary matters.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined the request, determining that the preliminary issues could be dealt with by the hearing panel at the outset of the scheduled hearing.