11 total
Union's preliminary motion to dismiss employer's reliance on the bargaining strength exception under the Pay Equity Act dismissed.
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.
Employer directed to restore pharmacy inventory work to CUPE bargaining unit following improper reassignment.
The applicant union (CUPE) alleged that the employer hospital improperly assigned work normally performed by a Pharmacy Storekeeper in its bargaining unit to an Inventory Management Technician in the OPSEU bargaining unit.
The Board found that the work had historically been performed by a CUPE member and that the employer's preference for a technician did not justify removing the work from the CUPE unit, given the strong job protection language in the CUPE collective agreement.
The Board directed the employer to restore the work to the CUPE bargaining unit.
Motion to dismiss employer's applications for delay denied; ongoing negotiations provided reasonable explanation without prejudicing PEO.
The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion for the early dismissal of two applications filed by the employer, GL&V Process Equipment Group Inc., which objected to a Review Officer's order regarding pay equity.
The PEO argued that the employer's applications should be dismissed due to delay and abuse of process, as they were filed after the deadline set by the Tribunal in a previous decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the PEO's motion, finding that the employer's delay was reasonably explained by the parties' ongoing negotiations to settle the outstanding issues, including the gender dominance of certain job classes.
The Tribunal concluded that the employer's conduct did not amount to an abuse of the Tribunal's processes and noted that the PEO failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from the delay.
Employers' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied after legislation declared unconstitutional.
The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that Schedule J of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 deprived the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the applications.
Prior to the Tribunal releasing its decision, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) declared Schedule J unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the employers' motion, finding it was not deprived of jurisdiction.
Tribunal orders disclosure of individual job evaluation notes and limits review to application of evaluation system.
In a pre-hearing conference regarding pay equity complaints, the Tribunal clarified that the adequacy of the design of the employer's job evaluation system was not subject to review, but rather its application to the job content.
The Tribunal also ordered the employer to disclose individual committee members' evaluation notes, finding them arguably relevant since the employer intended to lead oral evidence to explain how certain job content was rated.
The Tribunal provided directions on the procedure for calling expert witnesses.
Tribunal orders disclosure of benefits itemization and job rate formulas in pay equity dispute.
The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation brought a motion for disclosure of information from the Ottawa Board of Education regarding job rates and benefits in pay equity plans.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal ordered the Board to disclose the itemization of benefits, the formulas used for determining salary and benefits portions of the job rate, and the methodology for converting benefits to a common denominator.
The Tribunal found the remainder of the disclosure request premature pending the filing of amended pleadings.
Certification of a new bargaining agent only constitutes a changed circumstance if unit composition changes.
The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) became the bargaining agent for two units of the Ottawa Board of Education and sought to negotiate new pay equity plans, arguing that certification constituted a changed circumstance and that the existing plans contravened the Pay Equity Act.
The Tribunal held that for the unit previously covered by a non-union plan, certification was a changed circumstance requiring the plan to be split, but for the unit that already had a union plan, a mere change in bargaining agent was not.
The Tribunal further held that an allegation of a contravention does not automatically trigger a duty to negotiate; a contravention must first be proven under the Act.
Tribunal asserts jurisdiction to determine if changed circumstances compel pay equity bargaining, rejecting premature comparison system review.
The Ottawa Board of Education brought applications to quash Review Officer orders directing it to bargain pay equity with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation for three bargaining units.
The Union filed cross-applications alleging the Employer's pay equity plan violated the Pay Equity Act and was no longer appropriate.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the Union's cross-applications because the issues were not adequately canvassed at Review Services.
The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider substantive matters related to the Review Officer's orders, including whether changed circumstances triggered an obligation to bargain, but declined jurisdiction to review the merits of the Union's proposed comparison system as it had not been discussed at Review Services.
Board approves media notice of human rights hearing despite publication ban on proceedings.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested directions regarding a prior interim decision that imposed a publicity ban on a sexual harassment hearing until the Board's decision is released.
The Commission sought approval to issue a notice to the media containing the time, place, and a summary of the allegations.
The respondents objected to disclosing the nature of the complaint, arguing it would prejudice the public.
The Board of Inquiry approved the Commission's draft notice, finding it essential for the public to know what the inquiry is about to make an informed decision to attend, provided the notice prominently displays the limitations imposed by the publicity ban.
Motion for in camera hearing and venue change denied; temporary publication ban granted to protect agency.
The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment brought a motion to change the venue of the hearing from Guelph to Kitchener, to hold the hearing in camera, and for a publication ban.
The respondent child protection agency argued that negative publicity would harm its ability to serve the community and raise funds.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed the requests for a change of venue and an in camera hearing, finding no sufficient basis to depart from the principle of open hearings and the educational purposes of the Human Rights Code.
However, the Board granted a publication ban preventing the news media from reporting on the proceedings until the release of the Board's final decision.
Summons for pre-hearing document production set aside; SPPA s. 12(1) only permits production at merits hearing.
In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint of racial discrimination, the Commission sought to compel a respondent to produce personal notes at a preliminary hearing prior to the hearing on the merits.
The Board of Inquiry set aside the summons, ruling that section 12(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act only permits a tribunal to compel the production of documents in evidence at the actual hearing on the merits, not for pre-hearing discovery.
The Board also held that the summons was not overly broad, but that the Commission must call the summoned individual as a witness to testify if it wishes to introduce the documents into evidence.
