Hilton Works, Parkdale Works, Frost Works, and General Office v. Jane MacDonald, and Stelco Inc.
0391-92 Hilton Works, Parkdale Works, Frost Works, and General Office, Applicants v. Jane MacDonald, and Stelco Inc., Respondents
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Vice-Chair; Bruce Budd and Janet Slone Taylor, Members
Appearances: James B. Noonan, Toni-Anne N. Dasent, Jerry Joy and Roger Fulton for the Applicants and the Respondent Stelco; Senka Dukovich for the Respondent MacDonald
Cite As: Hilton Works (No. 2) (1993), 4 P.E.R. 17
Employer - Effective Date In determining the identity of an employer for the purposes of pay equity the Tribunal will first consider who is the employer as of the effective date of the Act (January 1, 1988). An employer’s obligations to negotiate pay equity arise as of that date and it is from that date that any inquiry into employer status must commence. The Tribunal recognised, however, that changes in organizations may occur between the effective date and the posting date mandated by the Act and that these changes may result in a change in the identity of the employer as of the latter date. Therefore, although the Tribunal would focus its inquiry on circumstances existing as of the effective date, it would also hear evidence on any changes which occurred up to the posting date so as to permit it to fashion practical remedies.
Employeur - Date d'entrée en vigueur Lorsqu'il établit l'identité d'un employeur aux fins de l'équité salariale, le Tribunal cherche d'abord à savoir qui était l'employeur à la date d'entrée en vigueur de la Loi (ler janvier 1988). L'obligation pour un employeur de négocier l'équité salariale naît à partir de celle date et c'est également à compter de celle même date que toute enquête sur la situation de l'employeur doit commencer. Toutefois, le Tribunal a reconnu que les organismes peuvent subir des modifications entre la date d'entrée en vigueur de la Loi et la date d'affichage prévue et que ces modifications peuvent entraîner un changement de l'identité de l'employeur à la date d'affichage. Par conséquent, même si le Tribunal axera son enquête sur les circonstances qui existaient à la date d'entrée en vigueur de la Loi, il entendra également des preuves sur toute modification survenue jusqu'à la date d'affichage. Ainsi, il pourra élaborer des recours pratiques.
DECISION OF MARY ELLEN CUMMINGS, VICE-CHAIR, AND MEMBER BRUCE BUDD, JUNE 17, 1993
1At issue in these proceedings is who is the employer for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7 ("the Act"). Hilton Works, Parkdale Works, Frost Works, General Office (collectively called "the Business Units") and Stelco Inc. take the position that each Business Unit is an employer for the purposes of the Act. Jane MacDonald argues that Stelco Inc. is the employer.
2Before evidence was called, an issue arose as to the point in time at which the Tribunal should determine the identity of the employer(s). Obviously, the determination of this issue has an impact on what evidence is relevant.
3It is agreed that if Stelco Inc. is the employer, the mandatory posting date for a pay equity plan was January 1, 1990. If each of the Business Units is an employer, the mandatory posting date for some was January 1, 1990 and for at least one, January 1, 1991.
4Counsel for Ms. MacDonald alleged that the relevant point in time for determining who is the employer is 1990 and 1991, because that is when any obligations under the Act arose.
5Counsel for the Business Units and Stelco Inc. argued that the Tribunal could be most useful to the parties if it made a determination about the identity of the employer(s) that would assist the parties to know what their rights and obligations are today. That may involve determining the identity of the employer(s) at different points in time. In that way, a multiplicity of proceedings could be avoided, because the parties would know not only who was the employer(s) in 1990 and 1991, but who is the employer(s) today. If the decision looks at only 1990 and 1991, then Stelco Inc. and the Business Units may have to bring another application to the Tribunal to determine who is the employer(s) at this point in time.
DECISION
1 The Act was proclaimed on January 1, 1988. That day is therefore, the "effective date" for the purposes of the Act (subsection 1(1)). As of that date,