Susan Genge

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.

A group of unionized nursing employees filed a complaint alleging that the pay equity plan negotiated between their union and the employer contravened the Pay Equity Act by failing to accurately capture and value their job content.

The employer and union raised a preliminary objection that individual unionized employees lack standing to challenge a deemed approved plan.

The majority of the Tribunal held that while employees lack standing to complain under sections 12 and 14, which confer rights exclusively on the bargaining agent, they do have standing under section 7 to allege that the compensation practices fail to provide for pay equity.

However, applying a high threshold of review, the majority found that the application did not disclose an unreasonable exclusion of job information and dismissed the complaint.

The Vice-Chair dissented, arguing for a lower prima facie threshold.

The Union alleged that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith during pay equity negotiations and brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Employer's application regarding a Review Officer's order on gender dominance.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the Employer's application for delay or abuse of process, finding that meaningful bargaining had occurred.

However, the Tribunal found that the Employer failed to bargain in good faith by continuing to negotiate as if it accepted the Review Officer's first order while secretly intending to appeal it, thereby misleading the Union.

The Tribunal reserved on the quantum of compensation for wasted time and expense in evaluating job classes.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal after being certified to represent nurses at St. Joseph's Villa.

ONA argued that its certification constituted a changed circumstance under the Pay Equity Act, rendering the existing pay equity plan inappropriate, and sought disclosure of pay equity information.

The Tribunal held that certification was a changed circumstance because the Act requires separate plans for bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees.

The Tribunal ordered the existing plan to be split but declined to order the negotiation of a new plan.

The employer was also ordered to disclose specific information to allow ONA to fulfill its statutory obligations.

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 Tribunal seeking a prospective interpretation of the red-circling provisions under s. 8(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the employer had not made out a prima facie case and that the matter was not ripe for adjudication.

The Tribunal agreed with the union, finding that the application was premature because a sufficient factual basis was required to determine if the statutory requirements for red-circling were met.

The Tribunal declined to render a decision in the abstract.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement on an amended pay equity plan and jointly requested that the Tribunal revoke the Order.

The Tribunal declined to issue the consent order, noting that the Memorandum of Settlement did not disclose the basis for certain conclusions regarding job rates, gender predominance, and comparability of job classes.

The Tribunal requested that the parties provide specific information in writing or schedule a hearing day before it would consider revoking the Order.

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 union applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order on a pay equity dispute.

The parties disagreed on whether they had previously reached a binding agreement on job evaluation weightings and point totals.

The Tribunal found that the agreement on weightings was binding as it had been ratified by the employer's Board of Trustees, but the point totals were not binding as they had not been ratified.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to determine the final point totals for the disputed job classes before it would decide the issue of comparability.

The Pay Equity Office (P.E.O.) applied to the Tribunal seeking to enforce a Review Officer's order against the employer and the union.

The employer and the union had previously settled their dispute regarding the pay equity plan and argued that the P.E.O. lacked standing to challenge their settlement or enforce the order.

The Tribunal held that the P.E.O. is not a party to proceedings under subsection 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act and does not meet the test for participation under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the P.E.O. has no statutory jurisdiction to review settlements or enforce orders in these circumstances, and dismissed the application for lack of standing.

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 parties applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order for a pay equity plan for non-union employees of the Hospital.

The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal confirmed the order for a single pay equity plan and varied the gender predominance of certain job classes on consent.

However, the Tribunal declined to order that the parties be bound by a re-evaluation process or to appoint a specific Review Officer to act as arbiter, as this would be inconsistent with the Pay Equity Act.

The proceedings were adjourned to allow the parties to resolve their differences.

A review officer referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under s. 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, forming the opinion that the employer was not complying with an order to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The Tribunal noted that hearings are de novo and the review officer's opinion is not evidence.

The Tribunal directed the union to file an application if it intended to allege non-compliance, and scheduled a hearing to determine how to proceed.

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.

The employers and bargaining agents disputed the number of job classes and pay equity plans required for elementary school teachers under the Pay Equity Act, 1987.

The employers argued that all elementary teachers constituted a single job class and that separate pay equity plans were required for male and female teachers.

The Tribunal held that elementary teachers are divided into seven distinct job classes based on their different educational qualifications and corresponding salary ranges.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that a single pay equity plan was appropriate for all elementary teachers, as they form a single bargaining unit represented jointly by their respective branch affiliates.

The Tribunal also permitted limited intervenor status to the secondary school teachers' federation to provide historical context on teacher compensation grids.

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.