Pay equity hearings tribunaL
0731-01 Hatts Off Specialized Services Inc., Applicant v. Employees of the
0757-03 Employer not Represented by a Bargaining Agent, Respondents
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair; Catherine Bickley and Diane Rose Members
Cite As: Hatts Off Specialized Services Inc. (No. 3) (April 1, 2004) 0731-01 and 0757-03 (P.E.H.T.)
decision of the tribunal, APRIL 1, 2004
Hatts Off Specialized Services (“the Employer”) seeks to adjourn these two Applications sine die. By letter dated March 24, 2004, counsel for the Employer wrote that “…in light of the recent settlement between the Government and a number of trade unions, the Applicant is in the process of obtaining additional information which may result in the cessation of the matters currently before the Tribunal”. We assume that the Employer is referring to a settlement, which provided some funding to public sector employers, particularly those required to apply the “proxy provisions” of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7 as amended (“the Act”).
The Tribunal is prepared to grant an adjournment of these matters until July 5, 2004, instead of the typical one year that the Tribunal usually grants, for the following reasons. Tribunal File PE 731-01 was brought on October 30, 2001, in respect of an Order issued October 30, 2000. That application was adjourned twice in 2002, the second time for a year. Tribunal File PE 757-03 was brought on July 5, 2003, and at the scheduled Pre-hearing Conference, the Employer sought to bring both files on for hearing, with which the Tribunal agreed, even though the adjournment of the earlier file had expired. These matters are scheduled for hearing on April 19, 2004. The Applicant wants to adjourn both while it “seeks more information” as set out above.
Although the two Applications are different, they are related, in that each reflects the Employer’s reaction to a Review Officer’s Order that it is a “seeking employer” and is therefore required to implement pay equity using the proxy method of comparison. The Employer subsequently has sought to establish that it can achieve pay equity through other means available in the Act, but the second Order renews the Review Officer’s earlier determination that the Employer must use the proxy provisions. The Employer is entitled to seek review of those decisions. However, while these Applications are pending, pay equity is not being implemented in this workplace. Moreover, because Review Officers do not seek to enforce compliance with their Orders while Applications are before the Tribunal, the Pay Equity Office’s efforts to ensure compliance with the Act are thwarted, whether intentionally or not. Essentially, an Order that this Employer must comply with the “proxy provisions” has been outstanding since October 30, 2000, with neither a hearing before the Tribunal to bring a final resolution, nor a decision from the Employer to comply.
The Tribunal will usually permit parties to adjourn matters to facilitate settlement discussions or explore other options. But there is a limit. Once a party engages the Tribunal, we have some institutional interest in seeing matters resolved expeditiously. We also have an interest in ensuring that resort to our process is not a successful means to “hide” from compliance with a Review Officer’s Order. We are satisfied that in this case, a short period of adjournment will permit the Employer to make the inquiries and determine how it wants to proceed.
These matters are adjourned to July 5, 2004. On or before that date, the Employer is required to either request that the matters be scheduled for hearing, or advise the Tribunal that it is withdrawing these Applications.
Three employees, Laurie Tasanko, Tina Cherubin-Magri and Maria Decan, have filed Responses. However, they did not attend the Pre-hearing Conference. They are still entitled to participate, but it would assist the Tribunal to know if they still want to do so. They are required to advise the Tribunal, in writing, by no later than April 16, 2004, if they wish to continue to participate. If they do not so advise us, we will continue without them, and send them no further notices or other information.
Dated at Toronto this 1st day of April, 2004
Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair
Catherine Bickley, Member
Diane Rose, Member