OPEHT 2000

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's order declaring it a seeking employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant argued it was not a public sector agency because it provided health promotion and prevention programs, not direct treatment for addiction.

The Tribunal found that the phrase 'services related to addiction' in the Act's Appendix is broad enough to encompass programs aimed at preventing addiction.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was confirmed as a seeking employer required to use the proxy method of evaluation.

The applicant employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to pay outstanding pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that it was not required to make the payments because it had not received government funding, and sought to raise new arguments regarding the validity of the pay equity plan.

The Tribunal held that the employer could not raise new issues that were not canvassed at Review Services.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that a lack of government funding is not a valid defense under the Pay Equity Act to an employer's obligation to pay annual adjustments.

The application was dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's order requiring it to adjust the job rate of Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) to equal that of Ambulance Attendants (AAs).

The wage gap emerged after pay equity was achieved, as a result of an interest arbitration award that gave AAs a larger increase to achieve parity with provincial counterparts.

The employer argued this was permitted under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act as a difference in 'bargaining strength'.

The Tribunal held that the s. 8(2) exception does not apply when the female and male job classes are in the same bargaining unit.

The Review Officer's order was upheld.

The applicant, the sole incumbent of the 'Buyer' job class, sought reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision which found that the 'Buyer' was a male job class.

The applicant argued that her duties differed from previous buyers and included clerical functions, making it a female job class.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant relied on evidence and arguments that were available at the time of the original hearing and failed to demonstrate any new evidence, changed circumstances, or error of law that would justify interfering with the final decision.

The applicant employer brought a motion to revoke a Review Officer's order requiring it to amend and repost its pay equity plan.

The employer argued that because the plan had been deemed approved under the Pay Equity Act and no complaints or objections had been filed, the Review Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the order.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that Review Officers have a statutory duty to monitor the preparation and implementation of pay equity plans, separate from their duty to investigate complaints.

The Tribunal concluded that a Review Officer has the jurisdiction to issue an order if they form the opinion that there has been a contravention of the Act, even in the absence of a complaint or objection.

The motion on the jurisdictional issue was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to an evidentiary hearing.