Sharon Laing

The Corporation of the City of Peterborough objected to a Review Officer's order requiring the implementation of a pay equity plan negotiated with the Professional Fire Fighters Association.

The employer argued the comparison system and job data collection were flawed and gender-biased.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the parties erred in treating each rank of Fire Fighter and Fire Alarm Operator as separate job classes, concluding there is only one job class for each.

The Tribunal also found the job data collection and comparison system inadequate.

Rather than ordering the parties to renegotiate, the Tribunal appointed a Review Officer to assist in settling the plan using the Tribunal's findings on job classes and job content.

One member dissented, arguing the parties' agreement on job classes should have been respected.

The applicant union applied to set aside a Review Officer's order that identified the Manager of Physical Operations as the comparable male job class for registered nurses under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties had used a point factor job evaluation system, and the Review Officer had selected the male job class closest in points.

The Tribunal panel split three ways.

The Chair revoked the order, rejecting the closest male comparator and banding approaches, and directed the use of a male wage line approach to redress systemic gender discrimination.

Two members dissented from the Chair's jurisdictional authority to order a wage line approach.

One dissenting member found that the highest paid lower valued male job class should be the comparator under section 6(3)(b) of the Act.

The other dissenting member upheld the Review Officer's original order.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied to the Tribunal requesting an order that the Brant County Health Unit direct more than one percent of its annual payroll towards pay equity adjustments to accelerate the closing of a large wage gap.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that under section 13 of the Pay Equity Act, it has no discretion to order an employer to spend more than one percent of its payroll per year on pay equity adjustments, except in specific circumstances not present in this case.

The Tribunal directed the employer to post the amended pay equity plan and make adjustments in accordance with the statutory framework.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) requested that its pay equity applications against various hospitals be listed for hearing following the release of a related decision.

The respondent hospitals requested that the applications be adjourned sine die to allow for further negotiations on a gender-neutral comparison system.

The Tribunal denied the hospitals' adjournment request, finding no compelling reason to prevent ONA from proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered that the hospitals' cross-applications be listed for hearing alongside ONA's applications and directed the parties to complete their pleadings.

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 Ontario Nurses' Association applied for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision and sought remedies for the Employer's failure to comply with an order to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The Employer admitted non-compliance, citing financial constraints.

The Tribunal varied its original order, finding that the Employer's failure to bargain made the previous remedy inappropriate.

The Tribunal directed a review officer to prepare the pay equity plan, starting with the Union's proposed comparison system.

The Tribunal also ordered the Employer to pay compensatory damages, including the costs of pre-testing the system and the review officer's costs in preparing the plan, but declined to state a case for contempt or award legal costs.

One member dissented on the extent of the compensatory damages.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die pending a Court of Appeal decision in another matter.

The Tribunal proposed to terminate the application if not brought back within one year, and invited submissions.

The City and Library objected, arguing it interfered with their private agreement.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to manage its caseload and impose limits on adjournments.

The Tribunal imposed the one-year limit, noting the parties could amend their agreement or request an extension if the Court of Appeal decision was delayed.

The parties reached an agreement to adjourn the application sine die pending the release of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a related pay equity case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment but noted the need to place a finite limit on such adjournments to manage its caseload.

The Tribunal ordered that unless the parties objected within 21 days, the matter would be adjourned sine die and terminated if neither party requested a hearing within one year.

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.

During a hearing regarding the employer's alleged failure to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system and pay equity plan, William M. Mercer Limited applied for intervenor status.

Mercer sought to protect its commercial interests, arguing that allegations of gender bias in its job evaluation methodology could negatively affect its business.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Mercer was not a party under section 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, and had only a commercial and incidental interest rather than a direct legal interest in the proceedings.

Granting intervenor status would unnecessarily lengthen and complicate the hearing.

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.

The Applicant union sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from Dr. Pat Armstrong on women's work and gender bias in a pay equity dispute.

The Respondent employer objected to the witness's qualifications and the relevance of the proposed evidence.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal qualified Dr. Armstrong as an expert in the nature of women's work in the health care sector and critiquing methodologies.

However, the Tribunal limited the scope of her testimony to evaluating the specific methodology proposed by the Respondent and its potential gender effects, excluding general commentary on the Mercer comparison system or the parties' bargaining history.

The Ontario Nurses Association brought an application alleging the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk violated the Pay Equity Act, 1987.

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal had to determine whether the Regional Municipality was the employer of the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police, such that the police force would be included in the Municipality's establishment for pay equity comparisons.

The Tribunal developed a four-part test to determine the employer for pay equity purposes, focusing on overall financial responsibility, responsibility for compensation practices, the nature of the service, and consistency with the Act's purpose.

Applying this test, the majority found that the Regional Municipality was the employer of the police force, as it bore the ultimate financial burden and responsibility for policing as a municipal function.

The police force was therefore part of the Municipality's establishment.

The Applicant union moved to stay a Review Services order and to strike portions of the Respondent's Response.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to stay, finding no statutory basis to stay a review officer's order when no enforcement was sought and the issues were already before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal granted the motion to strike portions of the Response that contained new allegations of bad faith bargaining not raised during the Review Services process, while allowing the Respondent to amend its remedy to seek confirmation of the review officer's order.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the respondent municipality contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The respondent and the Board of Commissioners of Police challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the complaint, arguing the review officer had not declared an inability to effect a settlement.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under both s. 25(1)(a) and s. 25(1)(b) of the Act, finding that a reasonable opportunity for settlement had occurred and that an order had been issued entitling the applicant to request a hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the Board of Commissioners party status for the limited purpose of determining what constitutes the establishment.