Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
0548-95 Civic Institute of Professional Personnel, Applicant v. Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Respondent
Before Phyllis Gordon, Chair and Members Bruce Budd and Charles Taccone
Appearances Susan Ballantyne, Lynn Gillespie, Debbie Chadsey, Phil Lefebvre, Rekhe Nigan for the Applicant and Donald Wilson and Jane Clark for the Respondent
Cite as Ottawa-Carleton, (September 13, 1995) 0548-95 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL SEPTEMBER 13, 1995
Decision
This is an Application of the Civic Institute of Professional Personnel (the "Union") which seeks several orders of the Tribunal including: an order that the proposed job evaluation/pay equity plan is not gender neutral and does not achieve pay equity; an order pursuant to s. 25(2) and (3) of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.7, as amended (the "Act"), that a review officer and an expert designated by the Tribunal prepare a pay equity plan or modify the existing plan; and an order that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (the "Employer") pay all costs associated with the preparation of the pay equity plan.
The Employer raised a preliminary challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear this matter on the basis that the Application is premature and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Review Officer has not issued an order in this matter, nor has she provided a notification under s.23(2) that a settlement cannot be effected and that she will not be making an order under s. 24(3).
The Tribunal heard oral submissions on the preliminary matter on September 13, 1995, and decided on the same day that the Application was premature and should be dismissed without prejudice to refile in the future. As this ruling results in a dismissal of the Application, we are setting it out herein.
Counsel have set out, with very little variation in their accounts, the pay equity history between the parties and presented a series of documents and correspondence to the panel. It is evident that both parties have seriously accepted their pay equity obligations and that the Union has been responsive to its membership. The result is that for the past several months the parties have been at an impasse in their negotiations.
The Union filed a complaint with Review Services in December of 1994 and the Employer did so in June of 1995. While we appreciate that the delay has been frustrating, we find that there has been insufficient meaningful dialogue at Review Services.
The parties each filed with Review Services under s. 16(1)(a) of the Act because they had failed to reach an agreement about a plan during negotiations. For the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction under s. 25(1)(a), the impasse, or the failure to settle, must occur at Review Services. We perceive that the impasse is not one which exists in the context of serious settlement efforts at Review Services.
We are also mindful of another line of Tribunal cases which may be applicable. These cases hold that a party cannot bring to the Tribunal matters not canvassed at Review Services. Even if we were to assume jurisdiction on the basis of s. 25(1)(a), the Tribunal would next face the question of whether it could adjudicate the central issues in dispute between the parties. We wish to avoid the need to consider this additional jurisdictional issue.
In light of these findings, we dismiss the Application as premature without prejudice to the Union to refile in the future.