0131-90: In the matter of a referral under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987 relating to the SeniorOfficers'Associationofthe Timmins PoliceForce and the BoardofCommissionersofPoliceofthe City of Timmins
Before : Ralph Palumbo,Vice-Chair; Bruce Budd and Janet Slone Taylor, Members
Cite As: Timmins Board of Commissioners of Police (No. 1) (1991), 2 P.E.R. 50
Review Services - Referrals
A Review Officer formed the opinion that neither of the parties had complied with his order and referred the matter to the Tribunal. Neither party made an application to the Tribunal. The matter raises questions ofsubstanceand procedure which ought to bedealt withbeforethe commencement ofthe hearing:arethe parties, or either of them, alleging that the order has not been complied with, and if so, is that party prepared to make an application to the Tribunal; are the Tribunal's Rules of Practice dealing with noncompliance applications applicable; and, is the matter properly before the Tribunal?
Services de révision - Renvois
L'agent de révision était d'avis que les parties n'avaient pas respecté son ordre et il a renvoyé la question au Tribunal. Aucune partie n'a présenté de requête au Tribunal. Cette affaire soulève des questions de fond et de procédure qu'il importe de régler avant le debut de l'audience: est-ce que les parties, ou que l’une d'entre elles, prétendent que l’ordre n'a pas été respecté et, dans ce cas, est-ce que cette partie est prête a présenter une requête au Tribunal; est-ce que les règles de pratique du Tribunal concernant les requêtes relatives au défaut de respecter un ordre s'appliquent dans la présente affaire; et, est-il approprié que le Tribunal soit saisi de cette question?
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, NOVEMBER 5, 1990
1This matter comes before the Tribunal by way of a Referral by the Review Officer pursuant to subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, S.O. 1987 c.34 (the "Act") alleging that the Board of Commissioners of Police of the City ofTimmins(the "Board") and The SeniorOfficers'Associationof the Timmins Police Force (the "Association") have not complied with his Order dated July 23, 1990.
2The Review Officer's Order of July 23, 1990 states:
IwasappointedReviewOfficerinthis matteronApril10,1990 pursuant toanapplication for Review Services submittedbytheAssociationdatedFebruary23, 1990. The parties were negotiating a pay equity plan with a mandatory posting date and, if required, a first adjustment date of January 1, 1990. In order to investigate the matter and attempt to effect a settlement, I met with the parties on May 24, 1990 ....
Asthe partieshave notsought male comparatorsfromwithintheir own bargainingunitand only evaluated one male job class in the establishment, it is obvious that they have not complied with Section 6 of the Act. Therefore I will be issuing an order in accordance with Section 24(1) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987 ....
THE ORDER
I hereby order the Board of Commissioners of Police for the City of Timmins and the Senior Officers' Association to compare the female job classes in the Association's bargaining unit with male job classes in the establishment in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Pay Equity Act, 1987. The parties shall advise me of their findings in this regard on or before September 17, 1990 ....
Further to my appointment under Section 16(1) of the Act, I will monitor the parties' continued progress..."
1 Subsequent to issuing the Order of July 23, 1990 the Review Officer formed the opinion that the parties had not complied with it. On October 16, 1990 the Officer therefore referred the matter to the Tribunal pursuant to subsection 24(5) of the Act.
2 We note that neither party has made an application to the Tribunal alleging that the Order has not been complied with. The Referral to the Tribunal dated October 16, 1990 does not outline how the Order has not been complied with nor does it explain which party has failed to comply with it. The Review Officer filed another Referral dated October 24, 1990 in which he states that in his opinion "neither party is complying with any portion of this order..."
- This matter raises some interesting and difficult questions of both procedure and substance which ought to be dealt with prior to the commencement of a hearing. For this reason we request written submissions from the parties on the following issues:
2 Are the parties, or either of them, alleging that the Review Officer's Order of July 23, 1990 has not been complied with? If so, is that party prepared to make an Application to the Tribunal?
2 Non-compliance Applications are dealt with under Rules 1.04 and 1.05 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice. It is unclear whether they apply in the circumstances of this case. The Tribunal is requesting submissions respecting whether the Rules of Practice, and inparticularRules1.04and1.05, do apply in the circumstances of thiscase? If so, which party in this case is the Applicant and which is the Respondent?
2 Is the matter properly before the Tribunal as it appears that the Review Officer was appointed pursuant to subsection 16(1) of the Act whereas the Referral was made under subsection 24(5) of the Act?
3We direct the Registrar to serve notice of this Decision on the Pay Equity Office ("the Office"). Should the Office wish to file written submissions concerning the issue outlined in Question 3 above they may do so.
4The Tribunal directs that written submissions be served on the parties and the Office and filed with the Tribunal within 14 daysofthedateofthisDecision. The parties and the Office will then have a further seven days to serve any replies to the original submissions and to file them with the Tribunal.