0314-91 Peterborough Civic Hospital, Applicant v. Group of Employees, Judy Macintosh, and Association of Allied Health Professionals: Ontario, Respondents
0315-91 Group ofEmployees, Applicant v. PeterboroughCivic HospitalandAssociationofAlliedHealth Professionals: Ontario, Respondents
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Vice-Chair; Donald Dudar and Susan Genge, Members
Appearances: RobertHickmanandPhilip DayforPeterboroughCivicHospital;MargaretTraynor,Sandy McManus and Lori Bowerman for the Group of Employees; Judy Macintosh on her own behalf; Laura Trachuk, Lynn Keays and Sheila Philips for the Association of Allied Health Professionals: Ontario
Cite As: Peterborough Civic Hospital (1992), 3 P.E.R. 8
Practice and Procedure - Consent Orders
The parties requested the Tribunalissue a consent order confirming or varying the Review Officer's order in certain respects. The Tribunal reviewed the terms of the order sought and made the order requested except where to do so would be inconsistent with the Act. The Tribunal declined to order the parties be bound by the results of the re-evaluation process because to do so might limit the statutory rights of employees to bring concerns about the pay equity plan to the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to appoint a particular Review Officer to assist the parties and act as arbiter.
Pratique et procédure - Ordonnances de consentement
Les parties ont demandé au Tribunal de rendre une ordonnance de consentement pour confirmer ou modifier l'ordre de l'agent de révision à certains égards. Le Tribunal a examiné les conditions de l'ordre recherché et donné l'ordre requis sauf dans les cas où cela ne serait pas compatible avec la Loi. Le Tribunalarenoncé àordonnerque lespartiessoient liéespar lesrésultatsduprocessus de réexamenparce que,cefaisant,onpourrait limiterlesdroits des employés reconnus par la loi àsoumettreauTribunalleurs préoccupations en ce qui concerne le plan d'équité salariale. De surcroît, le Tribunal a jugé inapproprié de nommer à un agent de révision d'aider les parties et de servir d'arbitre.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MAY 27, 1992
- The Peterborough Civic Hospital (the "Hospital") applied to the Tribunal (File #0314-91) with respect to a Review Officer's Order made on October 10, 1991. The Order was made pursuant to ss. 15(7) of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7 (the "Act"). The Review Officer ordered a pay equityplanfor thenon-unionemployeesoftheHospital. The Hospital made a number of objections to the Order to which the other parties responded. In addition a Group of Employees applied to the Tribunal with respect to the same Order (File #0315-91).
1At the hearing, the parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts and a proposal for a consent order. The Tribunal issued the following oral decision which we now confirm in writing.
2On the basis of the Agreed Statement of Facts and the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's Order that a single pay equity plan be prepared and posted for all nonunion employees of the Hospital, including those job classes which became part of a bargaining unit represented by the Association of Allied Health Professionals: Ontario on September 10, 1990.
3On the basis of the Agreed Statement of Facts and the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal varied the Review Officer's Order as to the gender predominance of certain job classes as follows: Supervisor Day Therapy, also known as Senior Day Therapist, is male; Programme Day Therapist, also known as Programme Therapist, is female; and Occupational Therapy Assistant is female. The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's Order as to the gender predominance of all other job classes.
4On the basis of the Agreed Statement of Facts and the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal revoked the part of the Order whichre-evaluatedthe job scores ofcertainjob classes,and the part which placed the job classes in 50 point bands.
5The parties had agreed to a process of re-evaluation of the job classes with the assistance of a Review Officer who could act as arbiter. The parties requested that we incorporate their agreed process into our order. The Tribunal denied that request. The Tribunal outlined some concerns with the proposed reevaluation process, saying that failure to mention other aspects did not mean that we sanctioned them.
6The Tribunal indicated aconcernthatanyre-evaluationprocesscouldnot limit the statutory rights of employees to bring concerns with respect to the pay equity plan to the Tribunal.
7The Tribunal considered it inappropriate to order the appointment of a Review Officer to assist the parties and act as arbiter. We find that such a role for a Review Officer is not consistent with the scheme of the Act and its dispute resolution mechanisms. Further, such an appointment is inappropriate in the circumstances of this case, where there is an outstanding Order of a Review Officer which is before the Tribunal. We also advised the parties that the Tribunal has no authority to direct Review Services to appoint or not appoint a particular Review Officer. Whilewethinkitisanexcellentidea for the parties to seek the assistance of someone in whom they have confidence, the appointment by the Tribunal of a Review Officer in these circumstances is not appropriate.
8The Tribunal has an obligation to "settle the plan" under subsection 17(1) when a party objects to apayequity plan orderedbyaReviewOfficer. At the same time, we are willing to assist parties when they thinkthereisameansof resolution short of a lengthy and costly hearing. Consequently, on consentofthe parties, we adjourned these proceedings to give the partiesanopportunitytoembarkontheprocess they have developed to resolve their differences.
- Once they have completed that process, they will schedule the matter with the Registrar. The Tribunalwill hold a hearing to settle the plan. If there is a completedpayequityplanatthattime,towhich
there are no timely objections, the hearing may be perfunctory. We advised the parties that in this case, it may be possible to deal with the matter by way of written submissions.
9Ifthereisnocompletedpayequityplan,oriftherearetimelyobjectionstoacompletedplan,an oral hearing will be held and the Tribunal will settle the plan.
10Finally, as agreed by the parties, they will establish a schedule for payment of pay equity adjustments, including determining whether any adjustments to benefits are necessary. The parties will also ensure that the female job classes with the lowest job ratewillreceive payequityadjustmentsthatare greaterthanthe increases for other female job classes. These provisions will be established in accordance with the principles set out in the Review Officer's Order.
11The panel remains seized with respect to these matters.