Roslyn McGilvery

The applicant requested to withdraw her application before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union appealed a Review Officer's Order that directed the parties to complete a new pay equity agreement.

Following the union's certification, the parties had entered into a Letter of Understanding to review the existing 1990 pay equity plan.

They reached an impasse on the method of comparison and the determination of job rates.

The Tribunal found that the Letter of Understanding went beyond the strict requirements of the Pay Equity Act, which only required splitting the existing plan upon certification.

Because the parties were not statutorily required to negotiate a new plan, the Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's Order and declared the employer's unilaterally posted amended plan invalid.

At a pre-hearing conference for an application under the Pay Equity Act, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die until September 20, 2019.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent, noting the application would terminate without further notice unless a request to proceed or further extend was made prior to that date.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants failed to provide the respondent hospital with their submissions.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to serve the submissions forthwith and reminded them of their obligation to copy all parties on correspondence filed with the Tribunal.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applicants' Pay Equity Act application on a prima facie basis.

The applicants alleged that the employer and union failed to consider certain admitting and switchboard duties added to their ER Clerk classification during job evaluation.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the applicants sufficiently pleaded that the evaluation system unreasonably excluded important job information related to the four statutory criteria under section 5 of the Act.

The applicants, ER Clerks, alleged that their position was not accurately evaluated under the Pay Equity Plan.

The employer requested that the application be dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The Tribunal found that the application lacked particulars regarding the job evaluation and the alleged new duties.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to provide a clear and concise statement of facts and events by a specified date, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging an Order issued by a Review Officer requiring the production of payroll records.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a preliminary decision scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Review Officer had the legal authority to make the Order.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to advise whether it would pursue its argument that it need not comply with the request for information on the basis of privacy, and set deadlines for the filing of legal authorities.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, asserting that the Employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The Employer did not file a response or provide submissions.

The Tribunal found that the Employer had not complied with the Order and directed the Employer to post the Tribunal's order, provide payroll data, evaluate job classes, and pay any outstanding pay equity adjustments and interest.

The respondent hospital requested an extension of time to file its response to a pay equity application due to scheduling conflicts.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted a partial extension, extending the deadline to January 3, 2018, rather than the requested date of January 15, 2018.

The applicant, Teranet Inc., advised the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal that it would not be proceeding with its application under the Pay Equity Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the matter and closed the file.

A group of employees applied under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer and union violated section 5 by improperly evaluating the Unit Clerk job class in an updated pay equity plan.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicants were merely disagreeing with the evaluation conclusions rather than alleging a failure to apply the statutory criteria.

As the Tribunal will not second-guess reasonable evaluations agreed to by the workplace parties, the application was dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural decision confirming that the matter would proceed to an in-person hearing on June 6, 2017, pursuant to a prior decision.

The complainant, a Facility Attendant, alleged that the Employer and Union violated section 7 of the Pay Equity Act by agreeing to a wage grid that reduced her wages below the pay equity job rate she had previously achieved.

The Employer argued the reduction was necessary to prevent contracting out and was justified by differences in bargaining strength.

The Tribunal held that reducing an incumbent's wages below an achieved pay equity job rate violates the Act's maintenance requirements.

The Tribunal also found that the bargaining strength exception in subsection 8(2) applies to differences between male and female job classes, not between the union and employer.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the Union to contribute to the wage adjustments.

The applicant requested an extension of the deadline to file its affidavit in an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to May 5, 2017.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing and sought to proceed by way of written submissions.

The Tribunal declined to proceed in writing due to an insufficient factual basis, but granted the adjournment as it was unopposed by the Pay Equity Commission.

The hearing was rescheduled, with stipulations provided for the filing of affidavit evidence and the availability of the affiant for questioning.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, proposing to resolve the remaining issues by way of written submissions.

The Pay Equity Commission did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal declined to adjourn the matter, finding that it was unclear whether there were sufficient agreed facts upon which to determine the outstanding issues in writing.

The applicants, a group of employees, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer and union improperly evaluated the Unit Clerk job class in their pay equity plan, violating section 5 of the Act.

The respondents moved to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis.

The Tribunal noted that a complaint that one job class should have been evaluated higher is not meaningful without more, and that considerable deference is owed to negotiated pay equity plans.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act regarding the employer's failure to comply with Orders issued by a Pay Equity Review Officer.

The parties reached an agreement on the remedial consequences.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay the unionized and non-unionized employees the pay equity adjustments, including interest, and to adjust their job rates in accordance with the agreed schedule.

The matter was terminated.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal received letters from the Pay Equity Commission and the union describing agreements respecting the disposition of the matter.

Noting apparent discrepancies in how the agreement was described, the Tribunal directed the parties to participate in a conference call to clarify the terms and directed the Registrar to schedule the call.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties subsequently settled the matter pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.

In accordance with section 25.1 of the Act, the Tribunal recognized the settlement and closed the file.