2 total
Review Officer's pay equity banding structure upheld as reasonable, but retroactivity date varied to 2007.
The applicant union challenged a Review Officer's order establishing pay equity plans for two bargaining units.
The union argued that the Review Officer's use of a banding structure to determine male comparators was unreasonable, that the retroactivity date of December 18, 2018 was arbitrary, and that the Review Officer exceeded her jurisdiction by declaring the parties' Terms of Reference spent.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the banding structure was a reasonable method for determining comparability and confirmed the male comparators.
The Tribunal also agreed that the Terms of Reference were spent.
However, the Tribunal found the retroactivity date of December 18, 2018 to be unreasonable, as the wage gap existed prior to that date.
The Tribunal varied the order to set the retroactivity date to September 1, 2007, when the job analysis questionnaires for the male comparators were finalized.
Application for judicial review of labour arbitration award dismissed; arbitrator's interpretation of collective agreement was reasonable.
The applicant railway company sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld a union grievance concerning work jurisdiction.
The arbitrator found that the applicant improperly assigned yard service work to a road service conductor-only crew, contrary to the collective agreement.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and application to the specific facts was intelligible, transparent, and justified.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
