4 total
Proxy pay equity must be maintained, but not by ongoing proxy comparisons.
These applications concerned whether pay equity achieved through proxy pay equity plans in female-dominated long-term care workplaces must be maintained by continued reference to proxy establishments.
The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act imposes a maintenance obligation on proxy plans, but that maintenance does not require ongoing monitoring of changes in compensation or job value in the proxy employer’s establishment.
Instead, maintenance is to be carried out internally by monitoring the compensation/value relationship already established for the key and non-key female job classes.
The Tribunal also rejected the section 15 Charter challenge and held that workplace changes affecting job value made the existing $1.50 plans inappropriate absent a negotiated gender-neutral comparison system.
The matter was adjourned for nine months with directions to negotiate an amendment to the plans.
Tribunal refuses to dismiss historical pay equity allegations, finding they constitute a 'series of incidents'.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging systemic gender-based compensation discrimination against midwives spanning two decades.
The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss all allegations relating to events prior to November 27, 2012, arguing they fell outside the one-year limitation period in section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the detailed allegations of historical practices, policies, and attitudes formed an interconnected web that constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b), making the entire application timely.
Request to dismiss human rights application for being outside limitation period denied.
The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the Application to the extent it related to events outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued a bottom-line decision dismissing the request, finding that the Application as pleaded constituted a 'series of incidents' within the meaning of sub-section 34(1)(b) of the Code.
Full reasons were to follow.
Tribunal defers standard of review determination to allow union to present evidence on GNCS merits.
The union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal concerning a Review Officer's order regarding the gender neutral comparison system (GNCS) negotiated with the responding hospitals.
The hospitals argued the standard of review was reasonableness and could be decided without evidence, while the union argued for correctness and sought to present evidence on the history and scope of the disputed subfactor.
The Tribunal majority directed that the union be afforded the opportunity to present its case on the merits and deferred the determination of the standard of review.
A dissenting member would have decided the standard of review first.
