PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL
PE-0606-96 Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Applicant v.
Several Employees and A Group of Employees, Respondents
PE-0623-96 Nancy Tallevi and Groups of Employees, Applicants v. Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate Board, Respondent
PE-0624-96 Lucy Cameron, Applicant v. Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Respondent
PE-0625-96 Edward A. Singbush, Applicant v. Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Respondent
PE-0628-97 Donna L. Reid, Applicant v. Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Respondent
PE-0640-97 Jean Pedersen, Applicant v. Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Respondent
Before: Heather MacNaughton, Vice Chair, and Members Bruce Budd and Charles Taccone
Appearances: Senka Dukovich for the Group of Employees and Nancy Tallevi; Donna Reid and Jean Pedersen on their own behalf; Lucy Cameron on her own behalf and for Edward Singbush; Carole E. Hoglund for the Respondent
Cite as: Dufferin-Peel (November 12, 1997) 0606-96; 0623-96; 0624-96; 0625- 96; 0628-97; 0640-97 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, November 12, 1997
(Note: This decision was delivered orally at the conclusion of the hearing on November 12, 1997)
1The Dufferin Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board requests an order dismissing the applications of Lucy Cameron and Alex Singbush on the basis that their positions, that of Planner 1, were gender neutral and that in the result the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the rating of those jobs and the attendant pay equity adjustments.
2The Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 7, as amended (the "Act"), requires an employer to determine whether a job class is a male or female job class or whether it is neutral. The definitions in section 1 and subsection 5 of the Act set out the factors that an employer is to consider when making that determination. Those factors are historical incumbency, which includes incumbency at the time of assessing the job, and gender stereotypes of fields of work.
3The Tribunal heard evidence from Beth Chandler, the current manager of the planning department at the Board, and Don Mullin, a retired employee of the Board, who, from 1986-1988, was the manager of planning. We further heard evidence from Lucy Cameron.
4With respect to historical incumbency in the job class we heard that:
- in the late 1960's and 1970's the one planner position was held by a male;
- in 1987 the Planner 1 job had 1 male and 1 female incumbent; and
- on January 1, 1990 the Planner 1 job had 1 male and 1 female incumbent.
5While Ms Cameron argued that we should look at the gender composition of the entire planning department in all of its levels, we find that we are unable to do so. The task before us is to look only at the Planner 1 job class and we find that based on the factor of historical incumbency the job is gender neutral.
6We considered the argument of Ms Cameron that in late 1989 a decision was made to increase the number of planners in the department by 2 and that in February of 1990 one of those positions was filled by a female. However, the important time frame for our analysis is between the effective date of the Act, January 1, 1988, and the date on which the pay equity plan should have been posted, January 1, 1990. During that period of time we can reach no other conclusion but that the Planner 1 job class was gender neutral. The maintenance issues that might arise if the gender of the job class changed post January 1, 1990 is not an issue before us.
7With respect to the issue of gender stereotypes of the fields of work, we heard evidence from Ms Cameron as to the scope of some of her job responsibilities. These included: inspection of residential construction sites; analysis of official plans; processing boundary changes; and preparation of technical support data. None of these job responsibilities are what would have been traditionally thought of as female stereotypical fields of work.
8While we heard evidence with respect to the gender mix of planners generally, this evidence was not particularly helpful to us because it was by its nature imprecise and not supported by statistical information which would have lent it credibility.
9We therefore allow the Dufferin Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board's motion with respect to the applications of Lucy Cameron and Alex Singbush. We were grateful for the thoughtful and professional way in which Ms Cameron presented her arguments despite late receipt of information from the Dufferin Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board.