0394-93 Prescott PoliceAssociation, Applicant v. Prescott Police Services Board Respondent 0398-93 Prescott Police Services Board, Applicant v. Prescott Police Association, Respondent
Before : Mary Ellen Cummings, Vice-Chair; Bruce Budd and Charles Taccone, Members
Cite As: Prescott Police Services Board (1993), 4 P.E.R. 14
Practice and Procedure - Consent Orders
The Tribunal refused the parties' request to vary a Review Officer's order where they had provided no basis to support their request and the amendment proposed appeared to go beyond issue which had been before the Review Officer.
Pratique et procédure - Ordonnances de consentement
Le Tribunal a refuséd'accueillir lademandedemodificationd'unordred'une agente de révision présentée par les parties. Il a précisé que les parties ne pouvaient pas justifier leur demande et que la modification proposée semblait aller au-delà du litige dont avait été saisi l'agente de révision.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, APRIL 21, 1993
1The style of cause in file 394-93 has been amended to correct the name of the Respondent.
2On January 11, 1993, the Prescott Police Association filed an application with the Tribunal seeking enforcement of a Review Officer's Order dated September 14, 1992. On January 18, 1993, the Prescott Police Services Board filed an application with the Tribunal disputing the Review Officer's Order.
3The Review Officer's order indicated that:
The sole issue indisputeisthe scores tobe awarded inseveralfactorsofthree job classes: Constable, Dispatcher, and Recreation Department Worker.
The Review Officer then evaluated the jobs using the parties'evaluationsystemand arrived at a score for each of the factors in dispute. She then ordered the parties to:
...integrate the foregoing evaluation results into the overall evaluation results agreed upon bytheparties. The Employer and the Union are to determine the appropriate comparisons based on these results and to continue their negotiations to conclude a pay equity plan.
- Prior to the commencement of the oral hearing the parties reached an agreement. They have agreed on a comparator for the female job class, Dispatcher II, as well as other steps to be taken toward the completion of a pay equity plan. The parties' agreement also requests the Tribunal to vary the Review Officer's Order:
1 The parties agree for the purposes of the pay equity plan that the female job class of DispatcherIIisequalor comparable value to the male job classofRecreationbasedupon the skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions required.
2 Accordingly, the parties ask the Tribunal to vary the Review Officer's Order that the weightedpoint total of Dispatcher II be amended to be equal tothe Recreationjob class.
1 The Tribunal is unwilling to make the requested amendment. First, the parties have provided no basis on which we can amend the Order. We do not know how the parties arrived at a determination that the "weighted point totals" of the Dispatcher II and Recreation job classes should be equalised.
2 Second, the Review Officer'sOrdermadenodeterminationastothe"weightedpointtotal" of any of the job classes. The Order only gave "level" scores for some of the factors. Even if the parties gave us a basis on which to amend the "weighted point totals", we are not prepared to amend the Order by taking it a step further from what appears to be the issue the Review Officer was asked to deal with.
3 In any event, it appears that the parties have moved their pay equity negotiations well beyond the issue that was presented to the Review Officer and the Tribunal, that is, the disputed factor scores in three job classes. In fact, the parties have determined which job class is comparable to the Dispatcher II and have reached agreement on further steps to be taken to complete their pay equity plan. We encourage the parties to finish the task.
4We will adjourn these matters sine die. They will be terminated one year after the date of this decision, unless any of the parties brings them on for hearing before the expiry of that period.