Dr. Lynda Ames

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.

The Hospital for Sick Children objected to two Orders by a Review Officer that re-evaluated the female job classes of registered nurse (RN) and assistant clinical co-ordinator (ACC) to higher grades under the Pay Equity Act.

The Nurses sought to uphold the RN Order or, alternatively, argued the Hospital's job evaluation system was gender biased.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal majority found the Nurses failed to prove the system was gender biased.

Applying the system, the majority varied the RN Order, finding the four RN positions evaluated fell into two distinct job classes (Grades 10 and 11), and revoked the ACC Order, returning it to Grade 12.

The dissenting Chair would have upheld the RN Order placing them in Grade 12.

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.