OPEHT 1999

The parties brought cross-motions for disclosure in a pay equity dispute.

The employee sought disclosure of job history, wage rates, and hours worked for specific positions.

The Tribunal granted this request, finding the documents arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The employer sought disclosure of Pay Equity Office files for the utilities industry under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to assess consistency.

The Tribunal dismissed this motion, ruling it lacked jurisdiction under that Act and that the materials were irrelevant to the de novo hearing.

The employer's request for an interpretative order regarding 'Representative Male Job Class' was also dismissed as premature.

Following the incapacity of a tribunal member, a newly constituted panel of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined how the hearing should proceed.

The Tribunal ordered that the oral submissions on a pending jurisdictional issue be remade, noting the limited time and expense involved, the new member's need to hear the arguments, and the broad importance of the jurisdictional issue to the Pay Equity Office's mandate.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion for standing to participate as a party in applications filed by two colleges challenging the jurisdiction of a Review Officer to issue orders regarding their pay equity plans in the absence of a complaint.

The colleges opposed the motion.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding parties under s. 32(1)(d) of the Pay Equity Act, which requires a substantial and direct interest in the outcome of the case.

Finding that the PEO had a substantial interest in the broader policy outcome and the impact of the jurisdictional interpretation on its authority and practice, the Tribunal granted the PEO party status for the purpose of making submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

During the hearing of an application by Humber College, the appointment of the Employee Member of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal panel expired.

The parties agreed to determine the matter of panel composition by written submissions.

The Tribunal directed that a new Employee Member be placed on the panel pursuant to s. 29.1(2)(a) of the Pay Equity Act, and that the newly constituted panel would determine how the hearing should continue.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing its application, arguing that a footnote in the majority's decision demonstrated a misunderstanding of expert evidence and a breach of procedural fairness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the footnote was obiter dictum and not the basis of the decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that factual errors are not reviewable as errors of law, and there was no procedural unfairness because the parties had been given an opportunity to address the issue during final argument but declined to do so.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to determine whether the applicant Review Officers were in the correct job class under the Pay Equity Act.

During the hearing, the applicants attempted to expand the scope of the motion to challenge the employer's entire job evaluation system.

The Tribunal ruled that the scope of the motion was restricted by the parties' pre-hearing agreement to the narrow issue of whether the Review Officers' duties, responsibilities, and qualifications distinguished them from other positions in their assigned job class.

Expanding the scope at this late stage would severely prejudice the employer.

The County of Wellington objected to a Review Officer's Order determining that women providing day care in their homes under the County's private home day care program were employees for the purposes of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal applied the total relationship test and the organization/integration test to assess the relationship.

The Tribunal found that the County exercised significant control over the providers, including placement of children, mandatory training, supervision, and remuneration processes.

The Tribunal concluded that the providers were employees, not independent contractors, and dismissed the County's application, upholding the Review Officer's Order.

A group of psychiatric nurses challenged the pay equity plan negotiated between their union (OPSEU) and the employer (Management Board Secretariat), alleging it contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The plan utilized a policy-capturing methodology involving factor analysis and multiple regression to determine job values and select male comparators.

The applicants argued that the methodology, specifically the modification of factors and the presence of negative regression coefficients, failed to adequately measure and positively value female work, thereby leaving gender bias in the system.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, preferring the statistical evidence of the respondents' experts, and found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the decisions of the working group were unreasonable or that the plan contravened the Act.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion for the early dismissal of two applications filed by the employer, GL&V Process Equipment Group Inc., which objected to a Review Officer's order regarding pay equity.

The PEO argued that the employer's applications should be dismissed due to delay and abuse of process, as they were filed after the deadline set by the Tribunal in a previous decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the PEO's motion, finding that the employer's delay was reasonably explained by the parties' ongoing negotiations to settle the outstanding issues, including the gender dominance of certain job classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's conduct did not amount to an abuse of the Tribunal's processes and noted that the PEO failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from the delay.

The Law Society of Upper Canada applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order regarding its Pay Equity Plan.

The Tribunal found that the Review Officer erred in determining the job rate for lawyer job classes, as the Law Society's merit compensation plan qualified for an exception under section 8(1)(c) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal also found that the Director of Continuing Legal Education was not a female job class and that the first Faculty Instructor was appropriately included in the same job class as other instructors.

Finally, the Tribunal held that while widening the pay gap after the effective date of the Act is a breach of section 13(11), the Law Society's early payment of adjustments might mean no further payout is required.