PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL
PE 0649-97 Pay Equity Office, Applicant v. GL&V Process Equipment Group Inc. and Mary O’Connell, Respondents
PE 0650-97 Pay Equity Office, Applicant v. GL&V Process Equipment Group Inc. and Group of Employees, Respondents
Before: Mary Anne McKellar, Vice-Chair, and Members Bruce Budd and Margaret Kvetan
Appearances: Carrie Gallant for the Applicant; Mark Tessier for the Respondent, GL&V Process Equipment Group Inc.; and Mary O’Connell for herself and the Respondent, Group of Employees
Cite As: GL&V Process Equipment (30 January 1998) 0649-97 and 0650-97
(P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, JANUARY 30, 1998
This hearing was held by way of conference call on January 30, 1998.
In each of the above Applications, the Pay Equity Office seeks to have the Tribunal order GL&V Process Equipment (“the Employer”) to comply with Review Officer orders dated November 14, 1996 (“the Orders”). Its Applications are made pursuant to s. 24 (5) and (5.1) of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-7, as amended (“the Act”).
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction on such applications is circumscribed by s. 24(5.2) of the Act:
On a reference under subsection (5), the Hearings Tribunal shall not consider the merits of the order that is the subject of the reference.
- The Employer’s only defence to the Applications is to demonstrate that it has complied with the Orders. Nowhere in its Responses to these Applications does the Employer state that it has
complied. Indeed, in the course of the conference call, the Employer’s representative conceded that it had not and did not intend to fully comply with them.
The Employer’s Responses indicate some dissatisfaction with the merits of the Orders. Nevertheless, the Employer has taken no steps to file its own applications objecting to them, notwithstanding that the Orders were issued over a year ago; the Applications were made on July 3, 1997; and a Pre-Hearing Conference was convened in the meantime. During the course of the conference call, counsel for the Pay Equity Office indicated that Mr. Tessier had been clearly informed on two separate occasions of the necessity of filing his own application, and he did not dispute this assertion, nor did he dispute that the draft pre-hearing memorandum, agreed to by all the parties, but not executed by him, dealt with this issue.
Having regard to the considerable period of time during which the merits of the Orders might have been placed in issue by the Employer, we set a peremptory date for hearing the compliance Applications. That hearing will convene at 9:30 a.m., March 12, 1998 in the Tribunals’ Office 2nd Floor Hearing Rooms at 150 Eglinton Ave. East, Toronto.
If the Employer wishes to object to the merits of the Orders, it must do so by serving and filing a written application no later than 5:00 p.m., February 20, 1998. In the event that any such applications are filed, the March 12, 1998 hearing date will be converted to a pre-hearing at the same venue. The Employer has been advised that this direction permitting it a period of time in which to contest the merits of the Orders by its own application constitutes no assurance that any such application will be heard on the merits by the Tribunal, and that the Pay Equity Office may seek early dismissal of it.
The Deputy Registrar of the Tribunals’ Office previously directed the Employer to post broad notice of these Applications. We relieve the Employer of that requirement with respect to these compliance Applications. In the event, however, that the Employer makes application objecting on
the merits to the Order that is the subject of PE 0650-97, he must serve notice of that application in accordance with the Deputy Registrar’s direction.
Dated at Toronto this 30th day of January, 1998:
___________________________
Mary Anne McKellar, Vice-Chair
___________________________
Bruce Budd, Member
___________________________
Margaret Kvetan, Member