OPEHT 1998

The Pay Equity Office applied for an order compelling the employer to comply with Review Officer orders.

The employer conceded non-compliance but had not filed an application objecting to the merits of the orders.

The Tribunal set a peremptory date for the compliance hearing and provided a final deadline for the employer to file an application objecting to the merits of the orders.

The applicants brought a motion for disclosure of documents related to the job evaluation and pay equity committees' work, arguing they were necessary for cross-examination and expert review.

The respondent School Board objected on grounds of timeliness and relevance.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that although the disclosure requests were slightly delayed past the agreed pre-hearing date, the delay was minimal and did not preclude the requests.

Applying the test of arguable relevance, the Tribunal ordered the School Board to disclose specific notes, minutes, questionnaires, and job descriptions.

The Tribunal also clarified that the School Board would lead its case first regarding the appeal of the Review Officer's order.

The Service Employees International Union and the London and District Service Workers Union brought a motion to dismiss several applications on the grounds that the applicants failed to finalize an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Tribunal dismissed this motion, noting the pre-hearing memorandum contemplated the possibility of no agreement.

The applicants' agent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, directing the parties to attend a further pre-hearing conference to discuss finalizing facts, witness evidence, and scheduling.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicants to produce certain arguably relevant documents.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed without further notice after one year unless a party requested it be rescheduled.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer Order regarding a pay equity plan.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the individual employees who initiated the complaint to Review Services lacked standing to participate as respondents before the Tribunal, as they were members of a bargaining unit represented by a union.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the employees' legal interests were identical to those of the union, and their participation would unnecessarily add to the length and cost of the proceedings without assisting the Tribunal.

The employees, who were unrepresented by a bargaining agent, sought an interim order requiring the employer school board to pay their regular wages while they attended a lengthy pay equity hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had no inherent jurisdiction or explicit statutory authority under the Pay Equity Act to order intervenor funding or interim costs in advance of a decision on the merits.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicants did not constitute a female job class, and issued a summons to the Pay Equity Commissioner for various personnel records.

The applicants also issued a summons to a Review Officer.

The Pay Equity Office objected, arguing the summonses breached the qualified privilege under section 31 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found extraordinary circumstances existed to grant consent for the summonses because the applicants themselves were Review Officers, but limited the scope of documentary production to protect personal identifying information and quashed the applicants' summons for irrelevant documents.