OPEHT 1991

The applicants filed objections to a review officer's order regarding the employer's pay equity plan, alleging undervaluation of their work and flawed comparison systems.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicants had established a prima facie case in their pleadings.

The majority held that the pleadings, though sparse, went beyond bald allegations and established a prima facie case, noting that non-union applicants have limited access to information about their employer's pay equity plan.

The Tribunal granted leave to provide further particulars and directed a second pre-hearing conference.

The Alternate Chair dissented, finding that the applications failed to plead material facts demonstrating how the evaluations were inappropriate.

A review officer referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under s. 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, forming the opinion that the employer was not complying with an order to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The Tribunal noted that hearings are de novo and the review officer's opinion is not evidence.

The Tribunal directed the union to file an application if it intended to allege non-compliance, and scheduled a hearing to determine how to proceed.

The applicant union challenged section 6 of the Pay Equity Act as contravening the Charter.

The respondent employer argued the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the Charter challenge.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Cuddy Chicks, the Tribunal held that section 30 of its enabling statute and section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 grant it the jurisdiction and impose the duty to apply the Charter.

The Tribunal reserved its decision on whether it has jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Charter to grant the requested remedy of amending the legislation.

The employer and the union engaged in pay equity negotiations and signed a memorandum of settlement.

The employer later claimed that the agreement was subject to ratification by the Board of Commissioners of Police, which did not approve it.

A Review Officer subsequently ordered the employer to post a pay equity plan.

The employer applied to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act does not require ratification of a pay equity plan.

Because the employer did not clearly communicate that its negotiating committee lacked the authority to bind the Board or that the agreement was subject to ratification, the memorandum of settlement constituted a binding agreement.

The Review Officer's order was revoked.

The applicant union objected to a Review Officer's order requiring the respondent hospital to equalize compensation between nurses and the manager of plant maintenance by providing a cash value for the difference in vacation entitlement.

The union argued that nurses should receive the increased vacation benefit instead of cash.

The Tribunal held that adjustments to achieve pay equity can be made to wages, benefits, or a combination of both.

Finding no evidence that increasing the vacation entitlement would cause the hospital undue hardship, the Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's order and directed the hospital to increase the nurses' vacation benefit to match the comparator job class.

Hay Management Consultants Limited sought to be added as a party intervenor in pay equity proceedings between the Ontario Nurses' Association and St. Michael's Hospital.

Hay argued it had a commercial interest because the union alleged its job comparison system was gender-biased.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Hay had no rights or obligations under the Pay Equity Act and no maintainable action against the union, and therefore was not entitled by law to be a party under section 5 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant City requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order directing the parties to complete and implement a pay equity plan.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to dismiss an application without a hearing on the merits if the written material fails to disclose a case that the Tribunal can remedy.

Finding that the City's application merely expressed general dissatisfaction with the job comparison system without alleging facts that would constitute a violation of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's order requiring it to pay the female job class of registered nurses an additional $0.37 per hour.

The Tribunal upheld the Review Officer's finding that subsection 13(10) of the Pay Equity Act requires pay equity adjustments to be incorporated into the collective agreement rate, and that subsequent negotiated increases must be calculated on the adjusted rate.

The Tribunal also found that the Employer failed to maintain pay equity under subsection 7(1) by giving the male comparator job class a smaller wage increase than other non-union staff, which artificially held back the nurses' job rate.

A Review Officer referred a pay equity matter to the Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, alleging that neither the Association nor the Board had complied with a previous order.

The Tribunal requested written submissions from the parties on how to proceed.

Neither party alleged non-compliance or wished to take carriage of the proceedings, indicating instead that they were still negotiating.

The Tribunal concluded it was not appropriate to proceed with the referral without a party willing to act as the applicant and present evidence, though the original order remained binding.