7 total
Application challenging the policy-capturing methodology of a negotiated pay equity plan dismissed.
A group of psychiatric nurses challenged the pay equity plan negotiated between their union (OPSEU) and the employer (Management Board Secretariat), alleging it contravened the Pay Equity Act.
The plan utilized a policy-capturing methodology involving factor analysis and multiple regression to determine job values and select male comparators.
The applicants argued that the methodology, specifically the modification of factors and the presence of negative regression coefficients, failed to adequately measure and positively value female work, thereby leaving gender bias in the system.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, preferring the statistical evidence of the respondents' experts, and found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the decisions of the working group were unreasonable or that the plan contravened the Act.
Tribunal cancels hearing dates and refuses to add parties due to lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal received letters from counsel and agreed to cancel scheduled hearing days.
The Tribunal declined to add the Group of Employees at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital to the complaint, despite the respondents' qualified consent, because the employees had not raised their complaint at Review Services, depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction.
Motion to withdraw pay equity complaint against union denied as union is a necessary statutory party.
The applicants sought to withdraw their pay equity complaint against their bargaining agent, OPSEU, and proceed solely against their employer, the Crown.
The Tribunal denied the motion, holding that under section 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act, the bargaining agent is a necessary party to a complaint regarding a pay equity plan that relates to a bargaining unit.
The Tribunal also consolidated another similar complaint into the present application.
Tribunal directs that evidence be heard before deciding if employees can challenge a deemed approved pay equity plan.
In a reconsideration hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, the applicant employees argued the matter should be decided on legal argument alone regarding their standing to challenge a deemed approved pay equity plan under s. 22(1) of the Pay Equity Act.
The respondent union and employer argued the complex legal issues should be considered in the context of evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that while a member of a bargaining unit can complain under s. 22(1), the more complex issue of challenging a deemed approved plan is better analyzed in an evidentiary context.
The Tribunal directed that evidence on the merits be heard prior to considering the legal arguments.
Unionized employees have standing to challenge pay equity plans under s. 7, but must meet a high threshold.
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.
Individual employees represented by a union lack standing to intervene in pay equity plan proceedings.
A group of individual teachers sought standing to participate in Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal proceedings regarding a pay equity plan negotiated between their employer and their bargaining agent.
The Tribunal dismissed their application and denied them intervenor status, finding that the Pay Equity Act does not provide individual employees represented by a bargaining agent with a statutory role in the preparation of a pay equity plan.
Furthermore, the teachers did not have a direct legal interest that would entitle them to party status at law, as the proceedings would not threaten the existence of their employment contracts or reduce their actual remuneration.
Motions to adjourn and to dismiss a duty of fair representation complaint were both dismissed.
The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a Pay Equity Plan.
At the hearing, the complainants moved to adjourn the proceedings pending a related court application, while the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Board dismissed both motions, finding that the complaint arguably supported a breach of the duty of fair representation and that an adjournment was not appropriate given the delay and the Board's exclusive jurisdiction over fair representation complaints.
