PAY EQUITY HEARING TRIBUNAL
0582-95 Group of Employees (Social Work) Applicant v. The Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Respondent
0586-96 Group of Employees (Psychometrists) Applicant v. The Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Respondent
Before: Mary-Woo Sims, Vice-Chair and Members Geri Sheedy and Margaret Kvetan
Counsel: Leslie Cooke for Group of Employees (Social Work), Marlene Rivier/Maggie Lederman for Group of Employees (Psychometrists) and Brian A. O'Byrne, for the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group
Cite As: The Royal Ottawa Health Care Group (18 July 1996) 0582-96; 0586-96 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
These applications concern the identification of Chaplain as the male comparator for the Social Work and Psychometrist job classes at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group (the Employer).
The Group of Employees (GOE Social Work) that is the Applicant in 0582-95 does not include all current and former incumbents of the social work job class since January 1, 1990. Similarly, the Group of Employees (GOE Psychometrist) that is the Applicant in 0586-96 may not include all the current and former incumbents of the psychometrist job class since January 1, 1990.
Additionally, there are other female job classes for whom the pay equity plan identified the Chaplain as the male comparator.
The current and former incumbents of these job classes since January 1, 1990 have not received notice of these proceedings.
At the pre-hearing held on March 26, 1996, the parties agreed to make written submission on whether the above individuals are entitled to such notice.
Counsel for the GOE Social Work submits that if the Tribunal finds that the Chaplain job class is not an appropriate male comparator, a new male comparator will be found. This may result in significant changes to the pay equity entitlements of the job classes which have the Chaplain as their comparator retroactive to January 1, 1990. Therefore, the interest of those persons who have been employed in those job classes from January 1, 1990 to the present is directly affected by the matters before the Tribunal. Natural justice and the Tribunal's practice require that those persons be given notice of these proceedings.
Ms Rivier and Ms Lederman representing GOE Psychometrists submit that if the Tribunal finds in favour of their application, a re-posting of the plan will follow. Persons in other job classes affected by the decision could find themselves before the Tribunal in due course. They submit that, in the interests of efficiency, it would make sense to involve the rest of the potentially affected job classes at the outset of these proceedings.
Counsel for the Employer submits that these individuals, whether they be former incumbents in social work, psychometrist or other female job classes where the Chaplain is identified as the male comparator, are not entitled to notice or to participate in these proceedings. In his submission, it would be most unfair to the Employer to allow these individuals, who had not filed objections to the first plan posted in January 1994 or to the revised plan posted in November 1995, to become parties to these proceedings at this late stage. Further, he submits that if these individuals were given the right to participate in the proceedings, it would likely result in the proceedings becoming even more protracted.
In our view, notice of the proceedings does not automatically entitle an employee or group of employees to become parties to a proceeding. This decision is limited to whether or not former and current incumbents in female job classes that have the male job class of Chaplain as their male comparator are entitled to notice of these proceedings
It has been the Tribunal’s practice to provide notice of hearings to present and former employees where the potential exists that their interests may be directly affected by the Tribunal’s decision. This has been done as a matter of administrative procedure rather than one which requires a decision of the Tribunal.
After reviewing the submissions of the parties, we find no reason to deviate from the Tribunal’s practice. It is clear that in this case, if the Tribunal finds that the Chaplain job class is not an appropriate male comparator, a new comparator may be found. This may result in significant changes to the pay equity entitlements of all those persons who have been employed in the female job classes which have the Chaplain as the male comparator from January 1, 1990.
We therefore order the employer to notify all current and former employees in female job classes which have the Chaplain as their male comparator.
In accordance with Rule 7 of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, we order the employer to:
(a) post notices in its workplace until the first date of hearing to be fixed by the Registrar, and;
(b) mail notices to former employees using the last known address for that employee
The notice shall identify the Applicant groups, the Respondent, the subject matter of the applications and the remedy sought. Further, if the employees or former employees intend to participate in these proceedings, they must notify the Tribunal and the parties 14 days in advance of the first hearing date to be fixed by the Registrar.The notice shall also indicate to the employees or former employees how to obtain further information regarding the Tribunal and its Rules of Practice.
- The employer shall inform the Tribunal of the date on which such notice was given by completing and filing a Statement of Posting in Form 6 with the Tribunal.
Dated at Toronto this 18th day of July, 1996:
Mary-Woo Sims
Vice-Chair
Margaret Kvetan
Member
Geri Sheedy
Member