Charles Lee

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 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.

In an application for certification, the respondent requested that a Labour Relations Officer's Report be amended to include evidence from a witness whose classification was no longer in dispute.

The Board denied the request, outlining its practice that such evidence is excluded unless parties agree otherwise, but permitted the respondent to call the witness at the continuation of the hearing.

The Board also deferred ruling on whether it could compel the production of extra-provincial employees, directing that the threshold issue of territorial jurisdiction be argued first.