Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
0739-02 Pay Equity Office, Applicant v. Regesh Family & Child Services, Tammy Mercer, Kelly Rose-Hurst, Anita Papastergiou, Deborha Ball, Iris Leibner, Charmaine Rice, Sharon Gayle, Peter Hones, Susanna Carvalhais, Tom Jones, Ana Paula Ribeiro, Laura D’Orazio, Sheri Da Silva, Respondents
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair and Members Margaret Kvetan and Pauline R. Seville
Cite as: Regesh Family & Child Services (Pay Equity Office) (No. 2) (September 6, 2002) 0739-02 (P.E.H.T.)
Decision of the Tribunal, SEPTEMBER 6, 2002
1On April 25, 2002, the Pay Equity Office (the Office) referred this matter to the Tribunal in accordance with subsection 24(5.1) of the Pay Equity Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P-7 (the Act).
2In a decision dated July 8, 2002 the Tribunal directed Regesh Family and Child Services (“Regesh”) to respond to a number of concerns. Specifically, the panel noted that Regesh did not dispute that it had not complied with the Order of the Review Officer. In addition, the panel was concerned that Regesh’s Response contained pleadings and a remedial request that had been part of an earlier Application that Regesh had withdrawn shortly after the Tribunal raised issues with it. Because of the withdrawal, those concerns were never answered by Regesh, but instead were repeated in its pleadings in this matter.
3In its decision of July 8, 2002, the panel wrote:
…. Regesh does not think that the Act should require it to comply, and it does not have the money to make the adjustments. Although those points are of significance to Regesh, there appears to be no basis on which this Tribunal, which is bound to interpret and apply the Act, can issue any remedy which addresses those concerns.
In summary, there appears to be no reason to convene an oral hearing. Unless Regesh can provide some foundation for the Tribunal to convene a hearing, the panel will issue a decision determining that Regesh has not complied with the Order, based on its own admission.
If Regesh wishes to make submissions they must be served on the other parties and filed with the Tribunal by no later than July 19, 2002. If Regesh makes no submission, the Tribunal will make an order directing compliance with the Review Officer’s Order of August 12, 2001.
4Regesh responded on July 19, 2002 as follows:
The employer in this matter is a member of the Ontario for Residences treating Youth (“OARTY”). You may or may not be aware that representatives of the Association have been meeting with representatives of both the Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services and the Pay equity Commission to try and determine how to deal with the pay equity obligations and funding constraints that these type of organizations face.
As a result, the employer formally requests that the Order of the Tribunal dated July 8, 2002 be stayed pending these ongoing discussions/negotiations.
5The Pay Equity Office responded, in part:
The Office does not agree with the request for a stay, of which it first became aware by copy of the letter from the Employer’s counsel to the Tribunal dated July 19. No request has been made to the Office by Regesh by Counsel for Regesh or by anyone else purporting to act on behalf of Regesh, to enter into discussions or negotiations in respect of settlement of this matter or to delay the issuance of a compliance Order by the Tribunal. The Office states that there are no ongoing discussions/negotiations in respect of this matter.
The Office requests that the Tribunal make an order directing compliance with the Review Officer’s Order of August 12, 2001 in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal dated July 8, 2002.
6Assuming without deciding that the Tribunal has the power to stay the Order of Review Officer, the panel declines to do so in this case. The Office, which has referred this matter, does not consent. The exchange of correspondence suggests that there are no active settlement or other fruitful discussions going on between the parties.
7In accordance with section 24(5.3) of the Act, Regesh bears the onus of proving compliance. Regesh has not provided any submissions to counter the appearance that it has admitted a failure to comply with the Review Officer’s Order.
8We conclude that Regesh has failed to comply with the Review Officer’s Order of August 12, 2001. Pursuant to section 25 of the Act, the Tribunal hereby orders Regesh to comply with the Review Officer’s Order of August 12, 2001.
Dated at Toronto this 6^th^ day of September, 2002.
__________________________________
Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair
__________________________________
Margaret Kvetan, Member
__________________________________
Pauline R. Seville, Member