PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL
0385‑92 York Region Board of Education, Applicant v. York Region Women Teachers' Association and Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, York Region District, Respondents
0450‑93 York Region Women Teachers' Association and Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, York Region District, Applicants v. York Region Board of Education, Respondent
Appearances: Victoria Reaume, Lorraine Stewart, Regine Baker and Fred Mayor for the York Region Women Teachers' Association and the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, York Region District
Angela Rae, Colette Nemni and Maria Ciani for York Region Board of Education
Before: Mary Anne McKellar, Vice‑Chair and Members Geri Sheedy and Charles Taccone
Cite As: York Region Board of Education (18 January 1995) 0385‑92; 0450‑93 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, JANUARY 18, 1995
I THE ISSUE
[1]. We have now heard the submissions of the parties with respect to the following question which we posed in our decision dated January 4, 1995:
Where a female job class and all potential male comparators for that female job class receive remuneration in the form of an annual salary as opposed to an hourly wage, how relevant to the determination of job rate" under the Pay Equity Act are the hours worked by the incumbents of those job classes, having regard to the fact that the Act is concerned with the rate for the job and not the rate for the incumbent? In other words, is salary, as an annual pay, representative of compensation for the “successful" disposition of an assigned responsibility irrespective of actual time expended in its performance by the particular job incumbent such that reducing salary to a rate per hour worked necessarily introduces an inappropriate element of incumbent performance into the determination of job rate?
II THE DECISION
[2]. We have determined that the hours actually worked by the elementary classroom teachers vis‑a‑vis their potential male comparators have no relevance to the determination of job rate" in the circumstances of this case. Our reasons for this ruling follow.
III THE REASONS
[3]. Pursuant to s. 1(1) of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.7, as amended (the "Act"), job rate" is the highest rate of compensation for a job class.
[4]. Compensation" means:
all payments and benefits paid or provided to or for the benefit of a person who performs functions that entitle the person to be paid a fixed or ascertainable amount.
[5]. Reading these two together, it is clear that job rate" comprises both a wages" and a benefits" component.
[6]. A meaningful comparison of the job rates of a female job class and its potential male comparators can only occur where the same currency" is used to describe their wages and benefits. If we look at the wages" component of job rate" for example, the wages for most job classes (with the exception of piece work) are described by the formula dollars per unit of time". So, for example, the wages for one job class might be expressed as $30,000 per year, while for another job class they might be expressed as $15.00 per hour. No meaningful comparison of the job rates for those two job classes can be made unless the unit of time measurement used to express them is the same.
[7]. In this case, the elementary classroom teachers and all of the proposed potential male comparators are paid annual salaries: that is the wage component of their job rates is expressed as $XX per annum. There is no useful purpose served in reducing those annual salaries to an hourly wage rate ‑‑ they can already be compared. Furthermore, as counsel for both parties candidly stated, to the extent that there are specific hours required" of the incumbents of these job classes, there is a discrepancy between the hours required" of them and the hours actually worked" by them. Obviously, if we convert the wage rate to an hourly one and calculate it on the basis of the hours actually worked, we introduce an inappropriate element of incumbent performance into the determination of what is the job a rate for the job class. On the other hand, if an hourly wage rate were calculated on the basis of hours required", it would be inaccurate and artificial. For these reasons, we are of the view that the wages" component of the job rate" for the job classes in dispute in this matter is equivalent to the highest available annual salary for those job classes.
[8]. The second component of job rate" is benefits. We have already heard evidence from the witnesses called by the Board of Education about the terms and conditions of employment for the elementary classroom teachers and their potential male comparators, and we anticipate that further evidence in this area may be called by the Branch Affiliates. Once we have heard all the evidence with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, we will be in a position to hear argument with respect to which of them constitute benefits" and what the dollar value of those benefits is. For example, counsel for the Employer indicated in the course of her submissions that she might well argue that the teachers' payment for time not worked is a benefit that must be quantified. We will not be able to calculate the job rate" until the dollar value of the benefits" has been determined.
IV THE NATURAL JUSTICE QUESTION
[9]. Counsel for the Branch Affiliates requested that we issue a ruling after hearing the parties' submissions on the question posed in Paragraph 1 above. We advised her that we were not prepared to make that commitment in advance of hearing submissions. Counsel for the Board took the position that, while the Tribunal was acting within its scope in posing the question, ruling on the question would be inappropriate and would constitute a denial of natural justice. Her argument ran as follows. When we ruled that the Branch Affiliates could bring a non‑suit motion without electing to call evidence, we indicated that we would not provide reasons in the event the non‑suit motion was dismissed. In the case law, the rationale for proceeding in such a fashion has been to avoid the prospect of having the adjudicator comment on the sufficiency of evidence led by the applicant, thereby providing an advantage to the respondent in the presentation of her case. Counsel for the Board submitted that, by issuing a ruling now with respect to the relevance of reducing annual salaries to hourly wage rates, we would run afoul of this principle.
[10]. Obviously, we take an allegation of a denial of natural justice very seriously, but we do not feel that natural justice or our impartiality are in any way compromised by the issuance of this ruling. We asked the parties to make legal submissions with respect to the interpretation of job rate" under the Act, and this ruling is a legal one that does not in any way involve a weighing of evidence: it is undisputed that the elementary classroom teachers and all the potential male comparators identified by either party are paid an annual salary. That is the only relevant fact" or evidence" relied on in this ruling. Counsel for the Branch Affiliates stated that if we made a ruling in which we determined that actual hours worked by incumbents were not relevant to the determination of job rate" for their job classes, then her case would be shortened because there would be witnesses she would not need to call and questions she would not need to ask. In the absence of any real natural justice concerns, and in the face of a case that has already occupied 49 hearing days, that is a compelling reason for issuing a ruling.