Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
0749-03 Pay Equity Office, Applicant v Magellan Aerospace Corporation, Fleet Industries Ltd., International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Lodge 939, and Kathy Crane Respondents
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair; Pauline R. Seville and Diane Rose, Members
Cite as: Magellan Aerospace Corporation, (Pay Equity Office) (April 22, 2003) 0749-03 (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, APRIL 22, 2003
This file is a Referral by the Pay Equity Office (“the Office”), brought pursuant to subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P-7 (“the Act”). The Office alleges that Magellan Aerospace Corporation, Fleet Industries Ltd. (“the Employer”) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 939 (“the Union”) have not complied with the Order of a Review Officer dated July 8, 2002.
Neither The Employer nor the Union responded to the Referral. Kathy Crane, an employee, responded indicating that she supported the position of the Office.
The Order required the Employer and the Union to post the pay equity plan that had been developed by the Officer. The Order further required the Employer and the Union to adjust the job rates of the female job classes to those of their male comparators; identify the required retroactive adjustments; negotiate a pay out schedule and make retroactive payments within 45 days of the date of the Order.
Initially, the Office had asked the Tribunal to do more than order the Union and the Employer to comply with the Order. In a decision dated March 17, 2003, the Tribunal asked the Office to make submissions about our jurisdiction to order other remedies, in the context of a referral. The Office has since written to the Tribunal indicating it no longer wishes to pursue those other remedies.
Subsection 24(5) of the Act provides as follows:
24(5) Where an employer or a bargaining agent fails to comply with an order under this section, a review officer may refer the matter to the Hearings Tribunal.
(5.1) The Pay Equity Office shall be deemed to be the applicant for a reference under subsection (5).
(5.2) On a reference under subsection (5), the Hearings Tribunal shall not consider the merits of the order that is the subject of the reference.
(5.3) On a reference under subsection (5), the person against whom the order was made has the burden of proving that he, she or it has complied with the order.
The Office’s assertion that its Order has not been complied with is unchallenged. The Tribunal concludes, then that the Order of July 8, 2002 has not been complied with by the Employer and the Union.
The Tribunal hereby orders the Employer and the Union to comply with the Order of July 8, 2002.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 22^nd^ day of April, 2003.
Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair
Pauline R. Seville, Member
Diane Rose, Member