0747-03 Brain Injury Services of Hamilton, Applicant v Carol Fesuk, Respondent
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings Chair; Diane Rose and Pauline R. Seville, Members
Cite As: Brain Injury Services of Hamilton (No.3) (July 15, 2003), 0747-03 (P.E.H.T.)
decision of the tribunal, July 15, 2003
This Application is an appeal with respect to a Review Officer’s Order dated December 19, 2002. The Order had two components; the first relating to the termination from employment of Carol Fesuk and the second relating to the posting of a pay equity plan.
The employer has written to the Tribunal on behalf of itself and Ms. Fesuk indicating that they have resolved the issues between them, and asking that this Application be adjourned sine die. The Tribunal’s practice, as set out in Rule 78 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, is to adjourn matters sine die for a year. If none of the parties seeks to bring it back on for hearing within one year, the application is terminated by the Tribunal, without further notice.
In the circumstances of this case, we have decided to adjourn the matter for a period of 6 months. As set out above, the Order of December 19, 2002 not only addresses the issues personal to Ms. Fesuk. The Officer also directed the employer to “…prepare and post a new pay equity plan, based on the proxy method of comparison, for the period commencing 1 January 1994, including any changed circumstances since then and that such plan be completed within 3 months of the receipt of this order”. The reasons for the adjournment request of this Application are “….to allow the employer additional time to consider the remaining issues raised by the Order”.
We think it appropriate for the employer to have an opportunity to consider how it wants to move forward, now that it has resolved the issues with Ms. Fesuk. But we believe that an adjournment of 6 months would give the employer sufficient time, while also ensuring that the issues relating to the pay equity plan are resolved either at the Tribunal or by compliance with the Officer’s Order.
On our review of the file, we noted that notice of this Application has not been given to all of the persons who would be affected by the aspects of the Application that relate to the pay equity plan. When this Application was first filed, the Applicant’s then counsel advised the Tribunal by letter dated February 10, 2003, that “…the purpose of the Application is to deal solely with Ms. Fesuk’s claim and the Review Officer’s Order in respect of her claim”. The Applicant then changed counsel and an amended Application was filed. The amended Application does raise issues concerning the pay equity plan ordered by the Review Officer. Specifically, the Applicant seeks to have the Order revoked and a declaration that the pay equity plan posted by the Applicant on January 1, 1994 is “valid and enforceable”, amongst other remedies. At the time the amended Application was filed, the Tribunal should have directed that notice be given by the Applicant to all former and existing employees affected by the plan. In the event that this matter is brought back on for hearing, the Tribunal will prepare a Notice to Employees, and direct that the Applicant provide it to former and existing employees.
In the meantime, this matter is adjourned until December 31, 2003. Before December 31, 2003, the Applicant is required to either request that the matter be scheduled for hearing, or advise the Tribunal that it is withdrawing this Application.