Yvonne Blaszczyk

The Applicant, a former Records Clerk, challenged a Review Officer's Order regarding the pay equity plan negotiated between her union and the Employer.

She alleged her position was not appropriately evaluated and was matched with the wrong male comparator.

The Respondents brought a motion to dismiss the Application on the basis that the Applicant lacked status.

The Tribunal found that the pay equity plan was negotiated, executed, and posted by the Employer and the union, making it a 'deemed approved' plan binding on the Applicant.

Because the Applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the plan contravened the minimum standards of Part I of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal declined to inquire into the merits and dismissed the Application.

Costs were not awarded.

The Applicant, a private per diem operator of children's residences, applied to rescind a Review Officer's Order declaring it a 'seeking employer' under the Pay Equity Act.

The Applicant argued it was a private sector employer.

The Tribunal found that because the Applicant operates its residences under licences issued under the Child and Family Services Act, it falls squarely within the definition of a public sector employer in the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act.

The application was dismissed and the Order confirmed.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union requested corrections to the Tribunal's March 27, 2002 decision.

The Tribunal acknowledged two errors and amended the decision to correct the effective dates for the pay equity plan and the formula for calculating the pay equity adjustment and retroactivity.

The Employer brought an application regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning the calculation and allocation of the 1% of payroll available for pay equity adjustments between 1990 and 1997.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to devote 1% of the bargaining unit's payroll to create a pool for these adjustments and set out a specific formula for calculating retroactive payments.

The Tribunal also ordered the implementation of the pay equity adjusted rates by March 23, 2002, and revoked the Review Officer's Order.

The applicant employer sought an adjournment of its application regarding a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued it could not afford the adjustments due to a lack of funding from the Crown, and that a recent transfer of programs constituted a sale of business to a new employer.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions, requiring the parties to make written submissions on whether the matter should be adjourned, whether the Crown was a proper party, whether the requested remedies were appropriate, and whether the sale of business issue needed to be determined in this proceeding.

The employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The employer sought to strike the order and requested the Tribunal inquire into the Review Officer's conduct.

The Tribunal struck the pleadings relating to the Review Officer's conduct, reiterating that its hearings are de novo and it does not inquire into the process or conduct of Review Services.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to assist the parties in setting deadlines for calculating and paying the adjustments.

The applicant sought a review of a Review Officer's order regarding pay equity compliance, asserting that an affected party, Russell Metals Inc., was the true employer.

The affected party argued this issue was raised for the first time in the application and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider issues not raised at Review Services.

Finding fundamental factual disputes in the parties' written submissions on whether the issue was raised below, the Tribunal directed the scheduling of an oral hearing to determine this threshold issue.

The employer objected to a Review Officer's order requiring it to increase the job rates of female job classes represented by OPSEU to match the rates of male comparator classes represented by CUPE.

The employer argued the difference was justified under the bargaining strength exception in s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

OPSEU brought a preliminary motion to summarily dismiss the employer's application, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the pay equity plan precluded the exception, the application failed to state a prima facie case, and the employer was estopped by its past conduct.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the motion but dismissed it on all grounds.

The Tribunal found the pay equity plan did not govern post-achievement maintenance, the joint bargaining context did not negate a prima facie case, and the employer had not made a clear representation to waive its statutory rights under s. 8(2) that would establish promissory estoppel.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order that it was obliged to comply with the Pay Equity Act and adjust the respondent's job rate.

The applicant argued that Russel Metals Inc. was the true employer following a sale of business.

Russel Metals Inc. argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the employer identity issue because it was not raised before the Review Officer.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the issue of the employer's identity was raised at Review Services before proceeding further.