OPEHT 1995

The union filed an application seeking a declaration that the Crown was the employer of its members working at Family and Children's Services for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Crown raised a preliminary objection, arguing that subsection 1.1 of the Act prevented the Tribunal from finding the Crown to be the employer.

The Tribunal held that the exception in subsection 1.1(4)(b) applied because the issue of the Crown's status as employer had been raised in a previous application filed before December 18, 1991.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the union's application was permitted to proceed.

One member dissented.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the applications sine die, noting its understanding that the outstanding issues had been resolved.

The Tribunal indicated that the matters would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing before then.

The Applicants requested an order requiring the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to notify former employees about the posting of a new pay equity plan, which was posted more than five years after the mandatory posting date.

The employer opposed, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order notice beyond workplace posting.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under its general remedial power in s. 25(2)(g) of the Pay Equity Act to order such notice, as workplace posting would be meaningless for former employees.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to notify former employees and extended the posting date to allow them adequate time to review and object.

The applicant union applied to set aside a Review Officer's order that identified the Manager of Physical Operations as the comparable male job class for registered nurses under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties had used a point factor job evaluation system, and the Review Officer had selected the male job class closest in points.

The Tribunal panel split three ways.

The Chair revoked the order, rejecting the closest male comparator and banding approaches, and directed the use of a male wage line approach to redress systemic gender discrimination.

Two members dissented from the Chair's jurisdictional authority to order a wage line approach.

One dissenting member found that the highest paid lower valued male job class should be the comparator under section 6(3)(b) of the Act.

The other dissenting member upheld the Review Officer's original order.

The employer posted a pay equity plan that purported to cover employees in two newly certified bargaining units without negotiating with the union.

The union argued the posting was invalid because it occurred after certification, triggering the employer's obligation to negotiate.

The employer contended the plan was posted prior to certification.

The Tribunal found that the plan was not properly posted in a location accessible to all employees until after the union was certified.

Consequently, the employer violated the Pay Equity Act by unilaterally posting the plan and was ordered to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system and pay equity plan with the union.

During a pay equity hearing, the Tribunal posed a question to the parties regarding the relevance of actual hours worked when determining the 'job rate' for female job classes and male comparators who are all paid an annual salary.

The Tribunal ruled that actual hours worked are irrelevant to the determination of job rate in these circumstances.

Converting an annual salary to an hourly rate based on actual hours worked would introduce an inappropriate element of incumbent performance into the calculation of the rate for the job class.

The Ottawa Board of Education brought applications to quash Review Officer orders directing it to bargain pay equity with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation for three bargaining units.

The Union filed cross-applications alleging the Employer's pay equity plan violated the Pay Equity Act and was no longer appropriate.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the Union's cross-applications because the issues were not adequately canvassed at Review Services.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider substantive matters related to the Review Officer's orders, including whether changed circumstances triggered an obligation to bargain, but declined jurisdiction to review the merits of the Union's proposed comparison system as it had not been discussed at Review Services.

The parties reached a written settlement of the matters in dispute regarding a pay equity plan, replacing the plan previously ordered by the Review Officer.

In accordance with section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal noted the settlement was binding and ordered that the agreed-upon pay equity plan be posted in the workplace forthwith.

The Hospital for Sick Children objected to two Orders by a Review Officer that re-evaluated the female job classes of registered nurse (RN) and assistant clinical co-ordinator (ACC) to higher grades under the Pay Equity Act.

The Nurses sought to uphold the RN Order or, alternatively, argued the Hospital's job evaluation system was gender biased.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal majority found the Nurses failed to prove the system was gender biased.

Applying the system, the majority varied the RN Order, finding the four RN positions evaluated fell into two distinct job classes (Grades 10 and 11), and revoked the ACC Order, returning it to Grade 12.

The dissenting Chair would have upheld the RN Order placing them in Grade 12.

Various groups of employees sought standing to participate in a hearing regarding the revocation or enforcement of a Review Officer's order directing the employer and union to conclude a pay equity plan.

Prior to the hearing, the employer and union reached a settlement on the pay equity plan.

The Tribunal held that the employee groups did not have standing to seek enforcement of the order or to participate in the revocation hearing independently of their bargaining agent.

As the employee groups and the Pay Equity Office were not parties to the revocation hearing, the settlement between the employer and union was binding and concluded the proceedings.

The request for compensation by the employee groups was denied.

The parties reached an agreement regarding a process to resolve outstanding pay equity matters and requested the Tribunal to incorporate their agreement into an order.

The Tribunal ordered the withdrawal of two applications and the adjournment of a third.

Pursuant to section 25(2) of the Pay Equity Act, a Review Officer was assigned to assist the parties in concluding pay equity plans for the SETA and PSSP bargaining units.

The order detailed the job evaluation system to be used, the timeline for preparing and posting the plan, and the information the Review Officer must provide if required to carry out job comparisons or determine pay equity adjustments.

The Branch Affiliates brought a motion to non-suit the York Region Board of Education at the close of the Board's case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the motion without requiring the Branch Affiliates to be put to their election.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to prepare legal submissions on the relevance of hours worked to the determination of 'job rate' under the Pay Equity Act when the job classes receive an annual salary.

At the commencement of a pay equity hearing, the applicants and respondent employees requested an interim order requiring the employer to permit them to attend the hearing without loss of pay.

They argued that requiring them to use vacation or unpaid leave created an economic barrier to accessing their rights under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Act to order an employer to fund employee participation at the start of a hearing, prior to any findings of a statutory breach.