Phyllis Gordon

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging a denial of natural justice because the original hearing panel failed to provide adequate notice that the parties' agreement on job classes was in jeopardy.

The respondent city opposed the request, arguing that the majority decision demonstrated proper notice was given.

Noting a disagreement between the majority and minority decisions regarding the notice provided, the Tribunal directed the parties to produce excerpts from the original hearing transcripts to assist in determining whether a breach of natural justice occurred.

Following a previous decision ordering reinstatement, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal resumed the hearing to resolve three outstanding issues regarding the respondent's reinstatement.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent be reinstated to the Deputy-Clerk position without the need to undergo a competition process, as she already met the minimum qualifications.

The Tribunal also determined that her retroactive wages for 1997 should be calculated based on the Deputy-Clerk salary of $38,000.

The applicant Village sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order which found that the Village had penalized the respondent Clerk-Treasurer for exercising her rights under the Pay Equity Act, contrary to section 9(2).

The respondent had objected to the exclusion of a male comparator from the Village's pay equity plan and filed a complaint.

Shortly after, the Village placed her on probation and subsequently dismissed her, citing poor performance in her accounting duties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the Village's application, finding that the performance evaluation process and the ultimate dismissal were tainted by anti-pay equity animus.

The Tribunal ordered the successor municipality to reinstate the respondent to a reasonable alternative position and to compensate her for lost wages with interest.

In a pre-hearing conference regarding pay equity complaints, the Tribunal clarified that the adequacy of the design of the employer's job evaluation system was not subject to review, but rather its application to the job content.

The Tribunal also ordered the employer to disclose individual committee members' evaluation notes, finding them arguably relevant since the employer intended to lead oral evidence to explain how certain job content was rated.

The Tribunal provided directions on the procedure for calling expert witnesses.

The Applicant challenged a Review Officer's Order requiring it to include the job class of 'Provider' in its pay equity plan.

In this preliminary decision, the Tribunal determined the dates and location of the hearing, granted party status to two non-complainant Providers, and ruled that the relevant date for determining whether Providers are a job class of employees is January 1, 1988.

The Tribunal also ordered the disclosure of various documents, including tax returns, contracts, and attendance registers.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation brought a motion for disclosure of information from the Ottawa Board of Education regarding job rates and benefits in pay equity plans.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal ordered the Board to disclose the itemization of benefits, the formulas used for determining salary and benefits portions of the job rate, and the methodology for converting benefits to a common denominator.

The Tribunal found the remainder of the disclosure request premature pending the filing of amended pleadings.

The Pay Equity Office requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed its referral application as moot after the employer and union reached a binding settlement.

The Office argued it was denied the opportunity to make submissions and that the decision was wrong in law.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider, finding the Office had opted not to participate in the hearing and had not demonstrated any error in law or compelling circumstances to justify reopening the matter, especially since the pay equity plan had already been posted and adjustments paid.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) became the bargaining agent for two units of the Ottawa Board of Education and sought to negotiate new pay equity plans, arguing that certification constituted a changed circumstance and that the existing plans contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that for the unit previously covered by a non-union plan, certification was a changed circumstance requiring the plan to be split, but for the unit that already had a union plan, a mere change in bargaining agent was not.

The Tribunal further held that an allegation of a contravention does not automatically trigger a duty to negotiate; a contravention must first be proven under the Act.

The Tribunal received letters from counsel and agreed to cancel scheduled hearing days.

The Tribunal declined to add the Group of Employees at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital to the complaint, despite the respondents' qualified consent, because the employees had not raised their complaint at Review Services, depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

The applicants sought to withdraw their pay equity complaint against their bargaining agent, OPSEU, and proceed solely against their employer, the Crown.

The Tribunal denied the motion, holding that under section 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act, the bargaining agent is a necessary party to a complaint regarding a pay equity plan that relates to a bargaining unit.

The Tribunal also consolidated another similar complaint into the present application.

The applicant union sought orders regarding a proposed job evaluation and pay equity plan.

The employer raised a preliminary challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the application was premature because the Review Officer had not yet issued an order or notification under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that there had been insufficient meaningful dialogue at Review Services and that the impasse required for the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction must occur in the context of serious settlement efforts at Review Services.

The application was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to refile.

In a reconsideration hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, the applicant employees argued the matter should be decided on legal argument alone regarding their standing to challenge a deemed approved pay equity plan under s. 22(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The respondent union and employer argued the complex legal issues should be considered in the context of evidence.

The Tribunal ruled that while a member of a bargaining unit can complain under s. 22(1), the more complex issue of challenging a deemed approved plan is better analyzed in an evidentiary context.

The Tribunal directed that evidence on the merits be heard prior to considering the legal arguments.

Various groups of employees sought standing to participate in a hearing regarding the revocation or enforcement of a Review Officer's order directing the employer and union to conclude a pay equity plan.

Prior to the hearing, the employer and union reached a settlement on the pay equity plan.

The Tribunal held that the employee groups did not have standing to seek enforcement of the order or to participate in the revocation hearing independently of their bargaining agent.

As the employee groups and the Pay Equity Office were not parties to the revocation hearing, the settlement between the employer and union was binding and concluded the proceedings.

The request for compensation by the employee groups was denied.

The applicant, a former seasonal worker for the City of Peterborough, filed a pay equity complaint under s. 9(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Review Officer found in her favour, and she sought enforcement while the employer sought to quash the order.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing the Review Officer lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not an employee for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the employer's preliminary motion, with written reasons to follow, and directed the Registrar to set dates for the continuation of the hearing.

The Ottawa Board of Education brought applications to quash Review Officer orders directing it to bargain pay equity with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation for three bargaining units.

The Union filed cross-applications alleging the Employer's pay equity plan violated the Pay Equity Act and was no longer appropriate.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the Union's cross-applications because the issues were not adequately canvassed at Review Services.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider substantive matters related to the Review Officer's orders, including whether changed circumstances triggered an obligation to bargain, but declined jurisdiction to review the merits of the Union's proposed comparison system as it had not been discussed at Review Services.