Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
0723-01: Hull-Thomson Limited, Applicant v. Lorna Keen, Respondent, Russel Metals Inc., Affected Party
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair; Pauline R. Seville and Yvonne Blaszczyk, Members.
Cite as: Hull-Thomson Limited (November 20, 2001) 0723-01 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, NOVEMBER 20, 2001
[1]. This application concerns the Order of a Review Officer issued, June 11, 2001. The Officer identified the issues in dispute as:
What is the size category of the employer, as it was, on the effective date of the Pay Equity Act (the Act), January 1, 1988? What is the job rate of the female job class? Were the changes to the applicant’s job class significant enough to merit a new male comparator?
[2]. The Officer concluded that Hull-Thompson Limited was an employer employing fewer than 100 but more than 49 employees, and therefore had a compliance date of January 1, 1993; that the job rate of Purchasing Manager was $40,000 prior to pay equity compliance; and that the changes to the duties of the job class were not significant. The Officer directed payments to the incumbent in the job class, Lorna Keen.
[3]. In its Application for review of the Order, Hull-Thompson Limited asserted that Russell Metals Inc. ought to be found to be the employer for the purposes of pay equity, setting out the reasons for taking such a position. As a consequence of that pleading, the Tribunal gave notice of the proceedings to Russell Metals Inc. and an opportunity to respond. In that Response, Russell Metals Inc. takes the position that it is not the employer, and moreover, to its knowledge the suggestion that it is the employer was raised for the first time in the Application. Russell Metals Inc. indicated that the Tribunal has consistently determined that it does not have the jurisdiction to consider issues that have not been raised at Review Services.
[4]. Consequently, the Tribunal directed all the parties to make submissions about whether the question of “who is the employer” had been raised at Review Services. The parties all made submissions, and in support of her submissions, counsel for Hull-Thompson Limited enclosed notes she made in her discussions with the Review Officer. The panel did not seek nor expect that any party would include evidence upon which it intends to rely, and the Tribunal will not rely on those notes unless and until they are entered through a witness who is able to identify them.
[5]. In any event, the submissions filed by the parties demonstrate fundamental factual disputes that must be resolved through the calling of evidence in an oral hearing. It is not possible for the panel to determine whether “who is the employer” was raised at Review Services on the basis of the submissions.
[6]. The Registrar is directed to contact the parties to determine how many days will be needed to hear this single, threshold issue, and to canvass their availability for a hearing in Windsor.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 20th day of November, 2001.
Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair
Pauline R. Seville, Member
Yvonne Blaszczyk, Member