Raphael Palumbo

The Brampton Public Library Board brought a motion requesting the Tribunal's consent under section 31 of the Pay Equity Act to compel a Review Officer to testify.

The Board argued that the Review Officer's testimony was necessary to establish a defence of 'officially induced error' regarding its failure to maintain pay equity.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Review Officer's order was directed solely to the question of maintenance, not the proxy comparison method agreement.

The Tribunal concluded that the extraordinary circumstances required to pierce the confidentiality of the Review Services process were absent.

Thomson Newspapers objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it to be the employer for the purposes of pay equity of employees at the Oshawa Times.

The Tribunal reviewed the relationship between the two entities and concluded that, while the publisher of the Oshawa Times controlled the operation of the newspaper, he did so as an employee of Thomson.

As such he was obliged to carry out Thomson's corporate goals and objectives.

Overriding financial control rested with Thomson as did ultimate authority for compensation practices.

The Tribunal affirmed the Review Officer's order and found Thomson to be the employer.

The employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal objecting to a Review Officer's order regarding the calculation of compensation for female job classes.

The Tribunal held that a shift premium available to male comparators must be provided to female job classes on the same terms, as the female classes' existing shift premium was illusory due to scheduling preconditions.

The Tribunal also found that a paid meal break for female job classes was not a benefit to be included in compensation, as employees remained under the employer's control.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that the cost of maintaining pay equity and preventing the wage gap from widening cannot be included in the 1% of payroll dedicated to closing the existing wage gap.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging that the SKEW job evaluation system proposed by the respondent hospitals was not gender neutral and failed to accurately capture and value nursing work.

The Tribunal found that the SKEW system's job fact sheet and valuing tool did not meet the standard of gender neutrality required by the Pay Equity Act, as they failed to make visible and appropriately value the complex skills, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions inherent in nursing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to negotiate and design a new gender neutral comparison system tailored to accurately capture the job content of the nursing and male comparator job classes in the hospitals.

The applicant union and respondent employer jointly requested that the Tribunal vary a Review Officer's order regarding the use and cost-sharing of a gender-neutral job evaluation system under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties sought to delete the requirement to share costs equally and to specify the use of the SES system.

The Tribunal varied the order as requested, noting that it has jurisdiction to issue consent orders where the requested relief is within its discretion and does not contravene the Act.

The Tribunal also noted that such joint requests could be processed via written submissions to avoid the delay and expense of an oral hearing, provided sufficient evidence and an agreed statement of fact are filed.

The applicant union objected to a Review Officer's order requiring the respondent hospital to equalize compensation between nurses and the manager of plant maintenance by providing a cash value for the difference in vacation entitlement.

The union argued that nurses should receive the increased vacation benefit instead of cash.

The Tribunal held that adjustments to achieve pay equity can be made to wages, benefits, or a combination of both.

Finding no evidence that increasing the vacation entitlement would cause the hospital undue hardship, the Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's order and directed the hospital to increase the nurses' vacation benefit to match the comparator job class.

Peat Marwick requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision denying it intervenor status in a pay equity dispute between the Ontario Nurses' Association and Women's College Hospital.

The Tribunal held that its discretion to reconsider decisions under s. 30(2) of the Pay Equity Act should only be exercised in compelling and extraordinary circumstances to preserve the finality of decisions.

Finding no new evidence, change in circumstances, or error of law, the majority dismissed the request.

One member dissented, finding that the consolidation of multiple similar applications constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant reconsideration.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied to have the City of London and the County of Middlesex declared the employer of the nurses at the Board of Health Middlesex-London Health Unit for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

Applying the Haldimand-Norfolk test, the Tribunal found that the Health Unit has overall financial responsibility, responsibility for compensation practices, and the core activity of providing public health programs independently.

The Tribunal concluded that the Board of Health Middlesex-London Health Unit is the employer, and dismissed the application.

The Ontario Nurses' Association and Women's College Hospital filed cross-applications regarding the negotiation of a pay equity plan and the gender neutrality of the proposed job evaluation system.

Stevenson, Kellogg, Ernst & Whinney (SKEW), the creator of the job evaluation system, sought intervenor status, arguing its commercial interests and reputation could be adversely affected.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal denied the intervention, finding that SKEW's interest was merely commercial and incidental to the main issue between the employer and the union.

The Tribunal also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaints.