PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL
PE-0721-01 Royal Crest Lifecare Group, Applicant v. Pay Equity Commission
And Unidentified Group of Non-Union Employees, Respondents
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair, Margaret Kvetan and Catherine Bickley, Members
Cite as: Royal Crest Lifecare Group (No. 2) (June 12, 2001) 0721-01 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, JUNE 12, 2001
Royal Crest Lifecare Group (the employer or the Applicant) has brought a new application with respect to an Order of an Officer dated June 21, 2000. The employer brought an earlier application on July 10, 2000. That application was dismissed in a decision dated March 16, 2001.
The first application was dismissed after the Tribunal held a hearing with respect to a preliminary motion brought by the Pay Equity Commission. The Tribunal concluded that the application should be dismissed because in numerous paragraphs, it complained about the conduct of and process followed by the Review Officer leading up to the issuance of the Order. The Tribunal reasoned that since hearings before the Tribunal are de novo, following our longstanding jurisprudence, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to enquire into any alleged frailties in the Review Services process. The complete remedy to such frailties is the opportunity to lead evidence and make submissions before this quasi-judicial Tribunal that makes its decisions solely on the basis of the evidence and argument presented to it. In that decision, the Tribunal reviewed the scheme of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P.7, as amended, and the remedial powers of the Tribunal and concluded that they were all focused on the resolution of disputes of workplace parties. The panel summarized its decision as follows:
28 Having regard to the whole of the Application, the Panel concludes that the employer has failed to make out a prima facie case. The employer has not pleaded particulars that are within the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider or remedy. Further, having regard to the Tribunal's longstanding practice of conducting de novo hearings, there would be no practical purpose served by enquiring into the Pay Equity Office's conduct. This Application is dismissed. Of course, the employer is free to file a proper application, and the Pay Equity Office is free to refer the matter to the Tribunal in the event the employer fails to comply with its Order.
The panel has reviewed the new application. It repeats all the allegations with respect to the Review Officer and seeks all the remedial relief that was set out in the first application. At the risk of repetition, the Tribunal has concluded already that those allegations do not make out a prima facie case under the Act. Thus, they are not properly part of a new application.
However, the Applicant has made new allegations and sought remedies which relate to the Order, and the hearing can proceed with respect to them. At paragraphs 18, 20, 23, 24 and 25 of Schedule A, the Applicant asserts that it has paid out all of the amounts owing under the pay equity plans subject to the Order, and has utilized at least 1% of its payroll in each year to do so. The Applicant asserts that:
The adjustments cited in the Commission’s Order fail to parallel the negotiated and approved Pay Equity Plans and further fail to acknowledge that all requisite pay equity monies have been distributed to the intended recipients, which recipients have further signed acknowledgements.
- The Applicant asserts that a review of its documents “…unequivocally demonstrated that all pay equity adjustments have been made as per the Pay Equity Plans negotiated and approved by the Commission”. As a remedy, at paragraph 6 of Schedule B, the Applicant seeks:
An Order concluding that the Applicant has satisfied all of its pay equity obligations to the respondents in accordance with the negotiated and Commission approved Pay Equity Plans.
It is proper and appropriate for the Tribunal to enquire into whether, as the employer alleges, all the monies owed under the pay equity plans have been paid. As the Tribunal understands the Order, the only issue the Officer addressed was whether the pay equity plans were being implemented according to their terms, that is whether the pay equity adjustments were made. That dispute is clearly one that would fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide. Further, that issue is one which is truly an issue between the workplace parties, as opposed to one about the conduct of the Review Officer.
Consequently, it is the Tribunal’s intention to limit the hearing to those allegations in paragraphs 18, 20, 23, 24 and 25 of Schedule A to the application, and the remedy requested at paragraph 6 of Schedule B. All of the other allegations and remedial requests have already been dismissed by the Tribunal in the first application, because they did not make out a prima facie breach of the Act.
Given that the application is now limited to the substantial workplace dispute about whether the pay equity adjustments required in the plans have been paid out, it is not clear to the Tribunal that the Pay Equity Commission is a proper respondent. Or put another way, it is not obvious that the Pay Equity Commission has an interest in these proceedings. The panel can deal with this issue, if necessary, when the hearing convenes.
This Review Officer’s Order was issued on June 21, 2000. It is nearly one year later and the dispute remains outstanding. If the Deputy Registrar is not able to find early dates after an initial consultation with the affected parties, the Deputy Registrar is directed to set the dates.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 12th day of June, 2001
Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair
Margaret Kvetan, Member
Catherine Bickley, Member