PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL
0740-02 Lorna Keen, Applicant v. Hull-Thomson Limited and Hull-Thomson Inc., a Pullman Industries Inc. Company, Respondents.
Before: Patricia E. DeGuire, Vice-Chair, Catherine Bickley and Margaret Kvetan, Members
Appearances: David Deluzio for the Applicant; and James H. Cooke for the Respondent Hull-Thomson Inc. No one appeared for Hull-Thomson Limited
Cite as: Hull-Thomson Inc. (No. 2) (November 19, 2002), 0740-02 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, NOVEMBER 19, 2002
BACKGROUND
Lorna Keen brings an Application before the Tribunal to enforce a Review Officer’s Order dated June 11, 2001 (“Order”). She asks the Tribunal to order the Respondents to pay the moneys stated in the Order plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and legal costs. Also, she asks that the Tribunal file its order with the Superior Court of Justice.
In her Application, the Applicant names “Hull-Thomson Limited and Hull-Thomson Inc., a Pullman Industries, Inc. Company” as the “Employer(s)”. In the Order, the Review Officer (“Officer”) named the Respondent HTL as the employer and the respondent.
The Officer determined that her pre-pay equity job rate for her job class as at December 31, 1992, should have been $40,000 per year. Since she was working at that time, her annual salary should have been $47,000 on January 1, 1993. Accordingly, the Officer ordered Hull-Thomson Limited (“Respondent HTL”) to pay the Applicant the difference between $47,000 per year and the amount it actually paid her, retroactive to January 1, 1993, within 14 days of the date of the Order.
In its Response, Hull-Thomson Inc. (“Respondent HTI”) states that it is not and was not the Applicant’s employer; that a Review Officer did not refer this matter to the Tribunal; and that the Order is erroneous.
In its decision dated July 8, 2002, the Tribunal ruled that the Response did not conform to Sub-rules 2.02 and 2.03 of its Rules of Practice. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Respondents to prepare, serve and file a proper Response no later than July 15, 2002. In addition, the Tribunal reminded the Respondents that failure to comply with its directive could result in the Tribunal’s refusal to allow the Respondents to rely on facts or events not set out in their Responses.
The Tribunal directed the Applicant to serve and file her Reply by July 22, 2002. The Tribunal reminded the parties that the hearing on the merits would commence on July 24, 2002. On July 12, 2002, the Tribunal received an amended Response from the Respondent Hull Thomson Inc. only.
JULY 24, 2002 HEARING DAY
- On the day of the hearing on the merits, Respondent HTI’s counsel informed the Tribunal he was appearing for Respondent HTI only and that he intended to bring a motion to dismiss the Application against his client. Having determined counsel for the Applicant had not been caught by surprise, the Panel consented to hear the motion.
MOTION TO DISMISS
- The motion is based on two grounds: (i) the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter; and (ii) Respondents HTL and HTI are two separate legal entities having two separate names. In addition, he asks for costs. The Applicant opposes the motion.
DECISION
The motion is dismissed. Costs are not allowed.
The Tribunal will issue reasons for its decision at a later time.
Dated at Toronto this 19th day of November, 2002.
Patricia E. DeGuire, Vice-Chair
Catherine Bickley, Member
Margaret Kvetan, Member