OPEHT 2003

The Applicant opposed the Tribunal's decision to deal with two preliminary issues by written hearing, arguing that the issues were jurisdictional and required an oral hearing under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal held that the issues—whether the respondents were employees when they filed their complaint and the order of proceedings—were procedural in nature.

Finding no good reason to hold an oral hearing, the Tribunal directed that the preliminary issues be dealt with by written submissions.

The Applicant brought an application concerning a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity for the Pool Deck Supervisor job class.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to pursue a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be terminated if not brought back for a hearing within one year.

The applicant, The Child's Place, requested an adjournment sine die of its application regarding a Review Officer's order to make pay equity adjustments.

The applicant advised it was in the process of implementing the order and intended to satisfy its pay equity obligations prior to its upcoming dissolution.

The Crown consented to the request, and no other parties responded.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment sine die, noting that the proceeding would be terminated if no party sought to bring the matter back on for hearing within one year.

Ford Motor Company of Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to amend its pay equity plan due to alleged changed circumstances at its Windsor establishment.

The Tribunal found that Ford failed to establish a prima facie case that its restructuring did not affect the pay equity plan.

However, the Tribunal also found the Review Officer's Order too vague to confirm, revoke, or vary.

The application was dismissed.

An individual wrote to the Tribunal seeking to participate in the ongoing proceedings.

A responding party objected, stating he was not acting as an agent for others and that only the initial respondents should participate.

The Tribunal noted a pending judicial review application that could impact the hearing.

Given that the next hearing dates were in January 2004, the Tribunal found it premature to resolve the individual's status and deferred the decision, directing the Registrar to provide the individual with copies of the file.

The applicant objected to a Review Officer's order directing the hospital to amend its pay equity plan to include female job classes that performed services for the applicant's clients.

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal considered whether the health care aide positions could be designated as casual under subsections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the work was performed on a regular and continuing basis, and therefore the positions could not be designated as casual.

The matter was relisted to determine whether the applicant or the hospital was the true employer.

The Applicant sought an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, citing recent awareness of the new Rules of Practice which introduced a time limit.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting that while reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and decisions are intended to be final, it was prepared to relieve against the strict application of the time limits in this case because it was the first request under the new Rules and the delay was not excessive.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary decision which found that the work performed by health care aides dispatched by the applicant was not casual work under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider the decision, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue its case without demonstrating an error of law or new evidence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the reconsideration request was premature, as the identity of the employer had not yet been determined.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die because the employer indicated it would implement the posted pay equity plan, which the applicants agreed to.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment sine die, noting the matter would be terminated if not brought on for hearing within one year.

The Applicant, OPSEU Pension Trust, objected to an administrative direction requiring it to give notice of its application to OPSEU, the Ontario Pension Board, and former non-union employees.

The application itself challenged a Review Officer's order finding that the sale of business provisions of the Pay Equity Act applied to the creation of the Trust.

The Tribunal held that there is a low threshold for giving notice and directed the Applicant to provide notice to all the identified entities and former employees, noting that they could later argue whether those parties had sufficient interest to participate.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, alleging that the employer and union failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

The order required the posting of a pay equity plan, adjustment of job rates, and retroactive payments.

Neither the employer nor the union responded to the referral.

The Tribunal found that the order had not been complied with and ordered the employer and union to comply.

The employer appealed a Review Officer's Order concerning the termination of the respondent and the posting of a pay equity plan.

The parties resolved the issues personal to the respondent and requested a sine die adjournment.

The Tribunal granted a 6-month adjournment, rather than the standard 1-year period, to allow the employer time to consider the remaining issues regarding the pay equity plan while ensuring timely resolution.

The Tribunal also noted that notice to affected employees would be required if the matter proceeds.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Public Service Staff Union brought a joint application seeking a declaration that their Minutes of Settlement regarding an amended pay equity plan constituted a binding settlement under section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the three requirements from Scarborough No. 2 were met: there was a matter requiring a hearing, a settlement was reached, and it was reduced to writing.

The Tribunal granted the declaration, confirming the settlement is enforceable.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed an application and found it did not plead a prima facie case or conform to Rule 12(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file an amended application by a peremptory date, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant requested an extension of time to serve and file an amended application, citing newly retained counsel and the complexity of the matter.

The respondent agreed to a short extension.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to March 21, 2003, balancing the need for new counsel to familiarize themselves with the file against the need to avoid significant delay.

The employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to comply with the Pay Equity Act.

The employer argued that the employee who initiated the complaint had signed a full and final release upon her termination, which barred any further claims arising from her employment.

The Tribunal found that the release did not specifically mention the Pay Equity Act, and therefore did not preclude the pay equity complaint.

Furthermore, the Review Officer's Order was not personal to the employee but required the employer to establish general compliance with its statutory pay equity obligations.

The application was dismissed and the employer was ordered to perform job comparisons and pay any required adjustments.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, alleging that the employer and the union failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to post a pay equity plan and make retroactive adjustments.

The employer and the union did not respond to the referral, and the Tribunal concluded that the order had not been complied with.

However, the Office sought additional remedies, including interest and a declaration of a breach of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal directed the Office to provide written submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to grant these additional remedies under subsection 24(5) of the Act before making a final determination.

The respondent employer brought an application seeking reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed a Review Officer's order requiring the employer to establish pay equity.

The employer argued the Tribunal erred in law by concluding that a release signed by the applicant upon termination did not preclude her from continuing a pay equity complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding that the employer was merely re-arguing positions already considered and rejected, and that the order in question required the employer to meet broader pay equity obligations in the establishment, which could not be compromised by an individual settlement.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to resume paying pay equity adjustments and make retroactive payments.

The employer did not file a response to the referral.

The Tribunal found the Office's assertion unchallenged and ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's order.