Bruce Richardson

The applicant union filed an objection under the Pay Equity Act, arguing that the wage grid for female job classes should be compressed to match the shorter wage grid of their male comparators in another bargaining unit.

The Tribunal found that the union was not estopped from raising the issue, but concluded that the Pay Equity Act does not require the equalization of wage grid structures, only the adjustment of job rates.

The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that the differing grid structures violated the Human Rights Code, noting that the Pay Equity Act is a comprehensive scheme akin to a special program.

The application was dismissed.

The Employer objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it failed to maintain pay equity for female job classes represented by CUPE 1734.

The Employer argued that wage disparities were due to differences in bargaining strength under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that s. 8(2) cannot be relied upon because pay equity had not yet been achieved for all employees in the establishment, specifically the teachers.

The Tribunal also found that CUPE 1734 was not complicit in the Employer's contravention, as the union had attempted to negotiate maintenance and subsequently filed a complaint.

The Employer's application was dismissed and the Order confirmed, except for the requirement that the union post a notice.