PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL
0546-95 Iona Appliances Inc., Applicant and United Steelworkers of America, Respondent
Before: Heather MacNaughton, Vice Chair and Members Charles Taccone and Bruce Budd
Appearances: Paula Turtle for the Applicant and David Corbett for the Respondent.
Cite As: Iona Appliances (19 December 1995) 0546-95 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, DECEMBER 19, 1995
The Tribunal has received and reviewed correspondence from the parties, dated December 15, 1995, advising it that the parties have entered into Minutes of Settlement which provide for the provisions of a pay equity plan and which settle the issues currently before the Tribunal.
Pursuant to the terms of the Minutes of Settlement, the parties jointly request that the Tribunal issue a decision that the pay equity plan agreed to by the parties replaces the Review Services Order.
The Tribunal has consistently declined to issue consent orders where it finds that it does not have sufficient information as to the basis on which the parties reached certain conclusions. In Glengarry Industries Limited (1992) 3 P.E.R. 27 at 28, the Tribunal established guidelines with respect to consent orders:
In our view, before the Tribunal can issue what amounts to a consent order, we must have jurisdiction to make the order, and be satisfied that the order sought is within the discretion of the Tribunal to make, in the sense that a contrary result is not dictated by the Act. We must also be satisfied, based on sufficient evidence, that the order would not result in non-compliance with, or a contravention of, the Act. We would require an agreed statement of fact, and documentary evidence, if necessary, upon which we can base a decision.
That position was followed in de Havilland (1993), 4 P.E. R. 1; Prescott Police Services Board (1993), 4 P.E.R. 14; and TRW Canada Limited (October 11, 1995) 0503-94; 0510-94. In the case before us we have heard no evidence, nor have the parties filed any documents to assure that the order being sought is within our jurisdiction and does not contravene the Act. For the above reasons, we decline to issue the consent order requested.
Nonetheless, pursuant to s. 25.1, settlements in writing of matters pending before the Tribunal are binding on the parties. If a settlement agreement is not complied with, an application for enforcement may be made to the Tribunal.
We could not leave this decision without commenting on the time constraints the parties purported to impose on the panel in their Minutes of Settlement. The parties agreed that their settlement would be null and void if the Tribunal did not grant the requested order on or before December 22, 1995. We are of the view that the imposition of time frames on the panel is inappropriate.