7 total
Application for pay equity adjustment dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case.
The applicants, Housekeeping and Junior Dietary Attendants, sought a pay equity adjustment, alleging that the employer and union contravened the Pay Equity Act by arbitrarily redesignating their job classes as gender-neutral and that the certification and subsequent plan amendments constituted changed circumstances.
The respondents brought a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the gender classification of the Housekeeping positions was an area of discretion and the pleadings did not establish that the agreement was unreasonable.
Furthermore, negotiated pay equity amendments do not constitute changed circumstances in the establishment.
The application was dismissed.
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 asserts jurisdiction over employees' pay equity complaint despite union-employer settlement, requiring further particulars.
A group of hospital employees challenged a pay equity plan, alleging it was gender-biased and failed to recognize their job classes as female-dominated.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on grounds of jurisdiction, timeliness, and standing, arguing that a settlement agreement with the union resolved the matter.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction because the union could not settle the employees' individual complaints on their behalf, and found the application was not untimely as the delay did not constitute an abuse of process.
The Tribunal directed the applicants to provide further particulars to determine whether they had established a prima facie case regarding the gender characterization of their job classes.
Human rights complaint for failure to promote dismissed; complainant was not the most qualified candidate.
The complainant, an East Indian man with extensive education and experience, alleged that the Ministry of Community and Social Services discriminated against him on the basis of race and ethnic origin by repeatedly failing to promote him over a 17-year period.
He applied for 30 promotional positions without success.
The Board of Inquiry reviewed the evidence, including expert testimony on systemic racism and employment equity, and the specific job competitions.
The Board found that the complainant was not qualified for the senior management Programme Supervisor positions.
For the Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisor positions, the Board concluded that the successful candidates were either more qualified or selected for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
The complaint was dismissed.
Motion to dismiss human rights complaint for delay denied; respondent cannot rely on its own document destruction.
The respondent Ministry brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights complaint as an abuse of process due to delay.
The Ministry argued that it could not present a defence because documents generated during the civil service competition in question had been routinely destroyed.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was not chargeable to the Commission and there was no evidence of an ulterior purpose.
The Board held that the Ministry could not rely on its own policy of routinely destroying internal documents to insulate itself from a human rights inquiry.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; related employer declaration granted without extending collective agreement scope.
The union brought an application for a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89.
The union alleged that the employer's purchase of a non-unionized plant, transfer of work, and subsequent layoff of bargaining unit employees were motivated by anti-union animus.
The Board found that the employer's actions were motivated by bona fide business reasons, including the declining market and obsolete equipment at the unionized plant.
The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed.
The Board granted the related employer declaration on consent but declined to extend the geographic scope of the collective agreement to the non-unionized plant.
