OPEHT 1997

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging a denial of natural justice because the original hearing panel failed to provide adequate notice that the parties' agreement on job classes was in jeopardy.

The respondent city opposed the request, arguing that the majority decision demonstrated proper notice was given.

Noting a disagreement between the majority and minority decisions regarding the notice provided, the Tribunal directed the parties to produce excerpts from the original hearing transcripts to assist in determining whether a breach of natural justice occurred.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a pre-hearing direction setting out questions for the parties to address at an upcoming hearing regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The jurisdictional challenge arose from amendments to the Pay Equity Act contained in the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996, specifically concerning the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on the impact of the amendments on accrued or accruing rights and provided a list of authorities for the parties to consider.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that Schedule J of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 deprived the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the applications.

Prior to the Tribunal releasing its decision, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) declared Schedule J unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the employers' motion, finding it was not deprived of jurisdiction.

The applicant local union filed an application against the employer and the parent union alleging flaws in the development of a pay equity plan, including a failure to accommodate language difficulties.

The employer and parent union brought preliminary motions to dismiss the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the statutory preconditions of exhausting the Review Services process had not been met.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the application failed to disclose a prima facie case, as the allegations primarily concerned internal union democracy and human rights issues rather than contraventions of the Pay Equity Act.

A group of Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) filed a re-Application challenging a deemed approved pay equity plan negotiated by their union and the hospital.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the re-Application.

The Tribunal found that the RPNs failed to meet their pleading obligations by not detailing allegations that the plan failed to comply with the minimum standards of Part 1 of the Pay Equity Act.

Concluding that the applicants had a fundamental misunderstanding of the Act and that there was no prima facie case to meet, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the re-Application.

The Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board brought a motion to dismiss the pay equity applications of two employees in the Planner 1 job class, arguing the position was gender neutral.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed historical incumbency and gender stereotypes of the field of work.

Finding that the Planner 1 job had one male and one female incumbent during the relevant statutory period and did not involve traditionally female stereotypical work, the Tribunal concluded the job class was gender neutral.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the rating of the jobs, and the Board's motion to dismiss the applications was granted.

The applicants filed multiple applications before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal against their union and employer.

Following a letter from the lead applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

A related application between the union and the employer remained adjourned sine die.

Le requérant, un groupe d'employées, a demandé le réexamen d'une décision du Tribunal de l'équité salariale rendue le 28 juin 1996.

Le requérant alléguait que le Tribunal avait outrepassé les limites de la question préliminaire en concluant qu'il n'avait pas démontré une violation des exigences minimales de la Loi.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande de réexamen, concluant que le requérant n'avait pas satisfait aux critères de réexamen.

La preuve que le requérant souhaitait présenter était disponible lors de l'audience initiale, mais son avocate avait choisi de ne pas la soumettre.

De plus, le requérant n'a pas démontré de changement de circonstances ni que la décision était mal fondée en droit.

The Applicant challenged a Review Officer's Order requiring it to include the job class of 'Provider' in its pay equity plan.

In this preliminary decision, the Tribunal determined the dates and location of the hearing, granted party status to two non-complainant Providers, and ruled that the relevant date for determining whether Providers are a job class of employees is January 1, 1988.

The Tribunal also ordered the disclosure of various documents, including tax returns, contracts, and attendance registers.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order finding it had failed to maintain pay equity for non-bargaining unit employees.

The employer argued that any differences in compensation were justified by differences in bargaining strength under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act, that changed circumstances made the plan inappropriate, and that it was misled by a previous Review Officer's letter.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the employer failed to prove the factual basis for the bargaining strength exception, that changed circumstances do not justify a past failure to maintain pay equity, and that the letter did not constitute an officially-induced error.

The applicant Village sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order which found that the Village had penalized the respondent Clerk-Treasurer for exercising her rights under the Pay Equity Act, contrary to section 9(2).

The respondent had objected to the exclusion of a male comparator from the Village's pay equity plan and filed a complaint.

Shortly after, the Village placed her on probation and subsequently dismissed her, citing poor performance in her accounting duties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the Village's application, finding that the performance evaluation process and the ultimate dismissal were tainted by anti-pay equity animus.

The Tribunal ordered the successor municipality to reinstate the respondent to a reasonable alternative position and to compensate her for lost wages with interest.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order that reinstated the respondent employee and compensated her for lost wages.

The respondent alleged that her hours were reduced and her employment subsequently terminated as a reprisal for receiving pay equity downpayments, contrary to section 9(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that its decisions were not tainted by anti-pay equity animus, given the negative comments and actions of the Executive Director and Board President regarding pay equity.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent reinstated to her full-time position with compensation for lost wages and interest.

The applicant, a Business Systems Analyst, alleged that her employer violated section 9(2) of the Pay Equity Act by penalizing her for her pay equity activities.

She claimed she suffered harassment, denial of training, poor performance appraisals, and ultimately termination as a reprisal.

The employer argued that the applicant's position was made redundant as part of a legitimate, organization-wide downsizing and technological restructuring.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the employer successfully discharged its onus to prove that the termination and other actions were unrelated to the applicant's pay equity activities and were not tainted by anti-pay equity animus.

The applicant's application was dismissed, and the employer's application to set aside the Review Officer's order was allowed.

Following a previous decision ordering reinstatement, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal resumed the hearing to resolve three outstanding issues regarding the respondent's reinstatement.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent be reinstated to the Deputy-Clerk position without the need to undergo a competition process, as she already met the minimum qualifications.

The Tribunal also determined that her retroactive wages for 1997 should be calculated based on the Deputy-Clerk salary of $38,000.

Following a previous decision, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal resumed the hearing to determine outstanding issues regarding the reinstatement of Monique Bastien.

The Tribunal ordered that she be reinstated to the position of deputy clerk (greffier adjoint) without having to undergo a competition process, as she had already proven her competence.

The Tribunal also determined that her retroactive pay for 1997 should be calculated based on the deputy clerk salary of $38,000.

The applicant employers sought revocation of a Review Officer Order which found that the Salvation Army was the single employer for all its facilities, corps, and centres for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal reviewed the organizational structure, financial control, human resources management, and program delivery of the Salvation Army and its various centres.

The Tribunal concluded that the Salvation Army Canada and Bermuda, acting through its corporate entity, exercised overall financial responsibility, control over compensation, and supervision of employee relations.

The Review Officer Order was confirmed.

In a pre-hearing conference regarding pay equity complaints, the Tribunal clarified that the adequacy of the design of the employer's job evaluation system was not subject to review, but rather its application to the job content.

The Tribunal also ordered the employer to disclose individual committee members' evaluation notes, finding them arguably relevant since the employer intended to lead oral evidence to explain how certain job content was rated.

The Tribunal provided directions on the procedure for calling expert witnesses.

The Corporation of the City of Peterborough objected to a Review Officer's order requiring the implementation of a pay equity plan negotiated with the Professional Fire Fighters Association.

The employer argued the comparison system and job data collection were flawed and gender-biased.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the parties erred in treating each rank of Fire Fighter and Fire Alarm Operator as separate job classes, concluding there is only one job class for each.

The Tribunal also found the job data collection and comparison system inadequate.

Rather than ordering the parties to renegotiate, the Tribunal appointed a Review Officer to assist in settling the plan using the Tribunal's findings on job classes and job content.

One member dissented, arguing the parties' agreement on job classes should have been respected.