OPEHT 2004

The Applicant employer brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear a pay equity complaint on the basis that the Respondents were former employees when they filed the complaint.

The Applicant also sought a determination that the Respondents should present their case first and bear the onus of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant voluntarily requested a hearing under subsection 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal further held that the Respondents' statutory rights under the Act survived the termination of their employment.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that the Applicant must proceed first and bears the onus of proof, as it is the party challenging the Review Officer's order.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter alleging the employer failed to comply with an order to prepare and post a pay equity plan and make required payments.

The parties reached an agreement to pay out all outstanding pay equity adjustments on an instalment basis by March 1, 2006.

The Office requested an extended adjournment until March 15, 2006, to allow for the completion of these payments.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the agreement of the interested parties, and directed the employer to post the decision in the workplace.

The Employer sought to adjourn two applications sine die pending additional information regarding a government settlement that might resolve the matters.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted a short adjournment to July 5, 2004, rather than sine die, noting that the applications had been outstanding for a significant time and that pay equity was not being implemented in the workplace while the applications were pending.

The applicant union challenged a Review Officer's order, alleging the employer failed to implement a 1990 Pay Equity Plan for part-time employees.

The employer brought a non-suit motion, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case that the parties had ever negotiated or agreed to include part-time positions in the same job class as full-time positions.

The Tribunal found that the statutory criteria for a single job class were not met, as part-time and full-time positions had different compensation schedules and recruitment methods.

The non-suit motion was granted, the application dismissed, and the Review Officer's order to negotiate part-time job classes was confirmed.

The applicant objected to a Review Officer's Order directing the respondent Hospital to amend its non-union pay equity plan to include female job classes performing services for the applicant's clients.

After the Tribunal previously determined the positions were not casual, the parties agreed that the Hospital could be treated as the employer.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's Order without a hearing, varying only the timelines for compliance due to an outstanding judicial review application.

The Pay Equity Office brought an application alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan using the proxy method.

The employer did not respond or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the employer in non-compliance and ordered it to prepare and post the plan, and to make required retroactive adjustments.

The Tribunal declined the Office's request to add an order for interest, noting that a compliance referral is not the appropriate forum to vary the original order's remedies, and the employer had no notice of the claim for interest.

A group of employees (Clerk 3s) applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, complaining that a pay equity adjustment given to Clerk 4s created an unfair wage gap.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Pay Equity Act does not require comparable female job classes to be paid the same, but rather requires matching female to male job classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants failed to plead material facts showing that the former union and employer acted unreasonably in evaluating the job classes.

The Tribunal indicated its intention to dismiss the application but allowed the applicants an opportunity to file further submissions.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the matters raised had not been the subject of a complaint or investigation by the Pay Equity Commission.

The applicant was invited to provide submissions but failed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as the matters had not previously been dealt with by the Pay Equity Office.

The Employer brought an Application regarding a Review Officer's Order requiring it to negotiate a pay equity plan using the proxy method.

The Employer argued it was not a public sector employer under Regulation 37/02.

The Tribunal struck paragraphs of the Application alleging bias by the Review Officer, noting its hearings are de novo.

The Tribunal declined to defer the hearing pending a judicial review in another case and directed the parties to provide further submissions on the legal effect of Regulation 37/02 and the Union's claim that the regulation is ultra vires.