Carolyn L. Kay

The applicant union brought a motion for the production of confidential reports made to the City's Board of Control and Council regarding pay equity.

The City resisted production, arguing the reports were protected by Wigmore privilege because they were dealt with in-camera.

The Tribunal ordered production, finding that the City failed to establish the fourth precondition of the Wigmore test, as the potential injury to future confidential communications did not outweigh the benefit to the administration of justice in correctly disposing of the litigation.

The applicant employer sought to vary two orders of a Review Officer regarding its non-union pay equity plan.

The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a plan using a 50-point band methodology and to search for unionized male comparators for unmatched non-union female job classes.

The employer developed an alternative plan using 150-point bands, which captured more female job classes for adjustments and avoided the complications of cross-bargaining unit comparisons.

The Tribunal found that the employer's chosen banding methodology was reasonable, not motivated by an attempt to avoid obligations, and consistent with the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal varied the orders, permitting the employer to post its 150-point band plan.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when his employer failed to accommodate his work-related injury and terminated his employment.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the Application pending the conclusion of WSIB proceedings.

The applicant subsequently withdrew his objection to a WSIB decision that found he was terminated for reasons unrelated to his injury.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the Application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceeding dealt with substantially the same factual and legal issues and constituted a final decision.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant employer and respondent union consented to the Tribunal resolving their outstanding disputes regarding a Pay Equity Plan based on filed materials.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to execute a Pay Equity Plan incorporating agreed-upon job class bands, male comparators, and retroactive adjustment dates as set out in an appendix.

The Order of the Review Officer was varied accordingly.

The employer, A.G. Simpson Automotive Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a pay equity plan based on previous determinations and to seek male comparators from bargaining unit positions.

The employer sought approval for a revised pay equity plan that changed the point spread for banding jobs, allowing for non-union male comparators.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate by filing a Response.

The employer, A.G. Simpson Automotive Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to vary two Orders issued by a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had ordered the employer to post a pay equity plan using bargaining unit male comparators for non-union female-dominated jobs.

The employer sought approval for an alternative plan that changed the point spread for job banding, allowing for non-union male comparators, which it asserted would result in higher pay equity adjustments.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant union sought an order requiring the employer hospital to adjust the wage grids for female job classes in its clerical bargaining unit to mirror the wage grids for male comparator job classes in its service bargaining unit, including the rate of progression through the grid.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Pay Equity Act only requires adjustments to the 'job rate' (the highest rate of compensation available to a job class) to achieve pay equity.

The Act does not mandate the equalization of entire wage grids or rates of progression below the job rate, which remain matters for collective bargaining.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability when his employer failed to accommodate his workplace injury and terminated his employment.

The employer requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an unsigned grievance settlement between the employer and the union appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant did not sign or agree to the settlement, it could not bar his human rights complaint.

However, the Tribunal granted the employer's alternative request to defer the application under section 45 of the Code, as the same issues regarding the suitability of modified work and the reasons for termination were currently before the WSIB on appeal.

The employer and the union filed applications challenging a Review Officer Order regarding the calculation of the job rate for a male comparator job class under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties disagreed on how to convert the annual salary and vacation benefit of the male comparator (Computer Technician) to an hourly rate for comparison with the female job class (ESL Instructor).

The Tribunal rejected both the union's position (which assumed all comparators received maximum vacation) and the employer's position (which ignored the value of the vacation benefit).

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the parties to calculate the total hourly compensation by properly valuing the vacation benefit based on years of service.

The employer and union disputed whether Electronic Pre-Press (EPP) operator positions constituted a single 'job class' under the Pay Equity Act.

Some operators received a negotiated wage rate, while others received higher 'gold-circled' rates protected from previous positions after a technological restructuring.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'job class' applies to determine if a single position constitutes multiple job classes.

Because the gold-circled employees had a different compensation schedule and range of salary rates than those earning the negotiated rate, the Tribunal concluded that the EPP operator positions did not constitute a single job class.

The employer and union challenged a Review Office Order regarding their negotiated pay equity plan.

The central issue was whether tips should be included in the calculation of 'compensation' for determining the 'job rate' of Casino Cashiers under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that tips can be included in compensation as they are ascertainable.

However, the Tribunal found that the process used by the employer and union to estimate the tip rate was unreasonable because they failed to use available, accurate tracking methods.

The Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's Order and directed prospective tip tracking for the Casino Cashiers and their male comparator group to accurately determine the tip rate.

The applicant union challenged a Review Officer's order, alleging the employer failed to implement a 1990 Pay Equity Plan for part-time employees.

The employer brought a non-suit motion, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case that the parties had ever negotiated or agreed to include part-time positions in the same job class as full-time positions.

The Tribunal found that the statutory criteria for a single job class were not met, as part-time and full-time positions had different compensation schedules and recruitment methods.

The non-suit motion was granted, the application dismissed, and the Review Officer's order to negotiate part-time job classes was confirmed.