OPEHT 2006

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's order directing it to prepare and post a pay equity plan retroactive to January 1, 1994, using the proxy method of comparison.

The employer argued it had already complied by posting a one-page document in 1996 and paying out 1% of payroll annually.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the employer's purported plan did not meet the mandatory requirements of section 21.18(2) of the Pay Equity Act, as it failed to properly identify comparator job classes, describe a gender-neutral comparison system, or set out the value of work performed.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's order and directed the employer to prepare, post, and implement a compliant pay equity plan retroactive to 1994, and to pay any required adjustments with interest.

The employer requested a reconsideration of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision dated April 28, 2008, seeking clarification on the effective date and calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments for the Casual Driver job class.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration, amending its previous order to correct the effective date of the retroactive adjustments from January 1, 1994, to April 1, 2003.

The Tribunal also clarified that the retroactive adjustment of $1.36 per hour should be calculated less any monies already paid to the Casual Driver job class.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding the employer's failure to comply with a review officer's order to post and implement a pay equity plan and pay adjustments.

The employer admitted non-compliance, citing a lack of funding.

The Tribunal found that an inability to fund pay equity is not a lawful excuse for failing to implement it.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to post the plan, calculate adjustments, and pay the required amounts with interest.

The applicant union sought a determination that the Community Relations Officer (CRO) job class was a 'female job class' under the Pay Equity Act, challenging a 1995 deemed approved pay equity plan that classified it as gender neutral.

The Tribunal applied a reasonableness standard of review to the plan.

Finding that both present and historical incumbency supported the gender neutral classification, and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the original negotiators ignored gender stereotypes in the field of work, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant employer sought to challenge an Order of a Review Officer which determined that the employer failed to establish and maintain pay equity as required by the Pay Equity Act.

The employer asserted that its corporate policy statement on equal opportunity and pay equity satisfied its obligations.

The Tribunal found that the employer's policy was not a substitute for the specific requirements of the Act, such as job comparisons and pay adjustments.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had not made out a prima facie case, but provided the employer with a further opportunity to make submissions before dismissing the application.

The employer applied to challenge a Review Officer's order concluding it failed to establish and maintain pay equity under s. 7(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office requested an extension of time to determine whether it would seek standing to intervene, noting it is not a statutory respondent unless it makes a referral.

The Tribunal agreed that the Office must seek standing to participate and granted the extension, observing that this is the first case addressing the pay equity obligations of a small employer exempt from Part II of the Act.

The Union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's decision that a negotiated change in the collective agreement did not contravene the Pay Equity Act.

The change increased the threshold for part-time employees to receive overtime pay, aligning it with full-time employees.

The Employer argued the Application should be dismissed without a hearing as no prima facie breach was pleaded.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the Union did not assert a benefit was lost by a female job class compared to a male job class comparator, but merely that part-time employees took home less pay.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Communication Supervisor, filed an application challenging a Review Officer's decision regarding the evaluation of her position under the Pay Equity Act.

She argued her position should have received at least as many points as the eliminated Emergency Response Officer position.

The employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the Act does not require new positions to be evaluated consistently with eliminated ones.

The Tribunal agreed with the employer's interpretation of the Act but allowed the applicant an opportunity to make further submissions before deciding whether to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant School Board objected to a Review Officer's order calculating the respondent's retroactive pay equity adjustment.

The Review Officer had awarded the maximum adjustment for each year of service, regardless of the respondent's actual salary or grid placement.

The Tribunal found that the School Board's approach of pro-rating the adjustment to maintain the proportional relationship among salary rates was permissible under the Pay Equity Act.

However, the Tribunal recalculated the amount owing based on the respondent's actual paid salary relative to the job rate, directing the School Board to pay the outstanding balance with interest.

The employer requested an extension of time to comply with a Review Officer's order, which the Tribunal had previously directed it to comply with in a final decision.

The Pay Equity Office opposed the request, noting the employer's history of delaying implementation.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider its final decision and refused to extend the time for compliance, warning the employer that failure to comply could result in enforcement proceedings in court.

The applicant employer filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal challenging a Review Officer's order to make pay equity adjustments for three female job classes.

The employer claimed the job classes were over-evaluated by mistake but provided no substantiating information.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to amend its application to comply with Rule 12 of the Rules of Practice by pleading material facts and providing details of the alleged over-evaluation.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to identify and serve the amended application on all current and former incumbents of the affected positions, failing which the application would be dismissed.