OPEHT 2001

The Tribunal previously dismissed parts of the employer's application relating to complaints about a Review Officer's conduct, leaving only a substantive workplace dispute about pay equity adjustments.

The Pay Equity Office filed a response seeking to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions regarding the Office's standing to participate in the proceeding before convening the hearing.

The employer applied for a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order directing it to make pay equity adjustments.

The employer's application focused entirely on allegations of bias, malice, and improper conduct by the Review Officer and the Pay Equity Office, rather than the substantive merits of the order.

The Pay Equity Office brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal granted the motion, holding that its jurisdiction under the Pay Equity Act is limited to conducting de novo hearings on substantive pay equity disputes, and it has no remedial authority to censure or police the conduct of Review Officers.

The Pay Equity Office sought standing to intervene as a party or as a friend of the tribunal in an application brought by the employer challenging a Review Officer's Order.

The Order concluded that the employer had not implemented its pay equity plans and directed payment of adjustments.

The Office argued it had a substantial and direct interest in the outcome, particularly because the non-union employees were unrepresented and vulnerable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Office's general interest in promoting pay equity did not amount to a direct and substantial interest in the specific outcome of the case.

The Tribunal also declined to grant amicus status, noting the issue was a straightforward factual determination of whether the employer had made the required payments.

The applicant employer brought a new application regarding a Review Officer's Order, after its first application was dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the new application repeated the same allegations regarding the Review Officer's conduct, which had already been dismissed.

However, the new application also included allegations that the employer had paid out all amounts owing under the pay equity plans.

The Tribunal allowed the application to proceed solely on the issue of whether the pay equity adjustments required in the plans had been paid out, as this was a substantive workplace dispute within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the Deputy Registrar to set early hearing dates.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her pay equity application.

She argued that the Tribunal misunderstood her job duties, that she was paid less than male enforcement clerks, and that the respondent obstructed her attempts to find replacement work.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for reconsideration.

She did not present new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearing, did not show a change in circumstances, and did not argue the decision was wrong in law.

The employer objected to a Review Officer's order requiring it to increase the job rates of female job classes represented by OPSEU to match the rates of male comparator classes represented by CUPE.

The employer argued the difference was justified under the bargaining strength exception in s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

OPSEU brought a preliminary motion to summarily dismiss the employer's application, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the pay equity plan precluded the exception, the application failed to state a prima facie case, and the employer was estopped by its past conduct.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the motion but dismissed it on all grounds.

The Tribunal found the pay equity plan did not govern post-achievement maintenance, the joint bargaining context did not negate a prima facie case, and the employer had not made a clear representation to waive its statutory rights under s. 8(2) that would establish promissory estoppel.

The employer applied to review an Order of a Review Officer requiring it to pay pay equity adjustments to a former employee.

The employer argued that a Memorandum of Settlement and Release signed by the employee upon her termination from full-time employment barred her from seeking the adjustments.

The Tribunal found that the release was negotiated solely to address issues related to the termination of her full-time employment and did not specifically address or satisfy obligations under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the Officer's order and directed the employer to pay the outstanding pay equity adjustment of $4,300.27 with interest.

The Applicant alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with a prior Tribunal order regarding documentary disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the Respondents had complied by providing lists of located documents and specifying which they agreed to produce and which they objected to producing.

The Tribunal directed the Applicant to clearly articulate the basis for her dissatisfaction with the Respondents' refusal to produce certain documents, as required by the prior order.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order that it was obliged to comply with the Pay Equity Act and adjust the respondent's job rate.

The applicant argued that Russel Metals Inc. was the true employer following a sale of business.

Russel Metals Inc. argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the employer identity issue because it was not raised before the Review Officer.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the issue of the employer's identity was raised at Review Services before proceeding further.

The applicant sought a review of a Review Officer's order regarding pay equity compliance, asserting that an affected party, Russell Metals Inc., was the true employer.

The affected party argued this issue was raised for the first time in the application and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider issues not raised at Review Services.

Finding fundamental factual disputes in the parties' written submissions on whether the issue was raised below, the Tribunal directed the scheduling of an oral hearing to determine this threshold issue.

The applicant sought to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring an amended pay equity plan.

At a preliminary hearing, the agent for the respondent group of anonymous non-union employees sought to withdraw his Response, citing an inability to obtain instructions.

The applicant opposed the withdrawal without proper notice to the group members.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the agent could not withdraw his Response until he obtained the names of the group members from the Pay Equity Office and provided them with notice of his intention to withdraw, giving them an opportunity to appoint a new agent.

The Tribunal directed the agent to complete this process and reserved on other preliminary issues.

The Applicants, owners and operators of adjoining nursing homes and retirement homes, objected to Review Officers' Orders declaring them to be 'seeking employers' under Part III.2 of the Pay Equity Act in respect of all employees in their retirement communities.

The Applicants argued that the proxy method of pay equity comparison should only apply to their nursing home operations, which are publicly funded and regulated, and not to their private retirement home operations.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that because each retirement community was operated by a single legal entity that held a nursing home licence, the entire entity was a 'public sector' employer under the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the 'establishment' for pay equity purposes included all employees of the employer, regardless of whether they worked in the nursing home or the retirement home.

The Review Officers' Orders were confirmed.

The Applicants, a group of Review Officers, challenged their job class placement under the employer's pay equity plan.

During a preliminary motion brought by the Respondent, evidence revealed that the Review Officers were treated as being in the ALR 19 job class for most of the pay equity process, despite being posted in the ALR 20 job class.

The Tribunal found the preliminary motion ill-founded based on this new evidence and ordered both parties to file new pleadings to properly address the issues revealed.