Concord Idea Corporation
0108-06-PE Concord Idea Corporation, Applicant
BEFORE: Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair, Pauline R. Seville and Margaret Kvetan Members.
CITE AS: Concord Idea Corporation (July 14, 2006 0108-06-PE) (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL; July 14, 2006
Concord Idea Corporation (“the Employer”) filed an Application on April 11, 2006. No one was named as a Respondent. It appeared that the Employer had some contact with a Review Services Officer about pay equity adjustment results for three female job classes. But as the Employer noted, the Review Officer had not made an Order at that point.
At the request of the Registrar, the Employer filed the Order, dated June 8, 2006, shortly after it was released. The Employer has also filed its pay equity plan.
It appears that the Employer’s job evaluation committee evaluated a number of female job classes using both the job to job comparison system and a proportional value analysis. The Review Officer reviewed the results and determined, based on the Employer’s valuing of the jobs, and on her application of the proportional value information through a regression analysis, three female job classes should have received a pay equity adjustment. Those job classes are Secretary, Secretary to the CEO and Secretary to the Chairman. The Officer ordered the Employer to make the adjustments, make retroactive payment, and pay interest.
In its Application to the Tribunal which, again, preceded the issuing of the Order, the Employer wrote: “No adjustment was made to the above three positions because these three female job classes were over-evaluated by mistake. Concord Idea Corp. brought this to the attention of the Senior Review Officer…..for remedies on February 20, 2006….but the outcome remained unchanged”.
The Employer has provided no information to support its assertion that the job classes were over-valued. It has provided no information about which aspects the committee got wrong, nor what would be the result of a re-evaluation of the jobs. The Review Officer noted in her Order that the Employer had not provided any substantiating information, and she believed the real issue for the employer was the financial impact of implementing the pay equity adjustment.
The Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, Rule 12 requires an Applicant to identify any other person the Applicant thinks might be affected by the proceeding and to:
(d) in consecutively numbered paragraphs set out the issues in dispute, the reasons for making the Application, identify the sections of the Act which relate to the Application, and provide a clear and concise statement of the facts and events upon which the Applicant relies.
Before the Tribunal can consider this Application, the Applicant must provide the names and contact information for the three incumbents in the secretary positions and the names and contact information for anyone else who held the positions since they were created in 2001. The Applicant must also amend its Application to comply with Rule 12, to plead the material facts, that is, details of the basis for its assertion that the three secretary job classes were not properly valued. In addition, the Employer must set out what it believes reflects the proper evaluation and how that result fits within its pay equity plan.
The Applicant must file its amended Application by no later than August 8, 2006. It must also serve its amended Application on all incumbents and former incumbents of the secretary job classes, including the information set out in Rule 14, by no later than August 8, 2006.
In the event that the Applicant fails to take these steps in a timely way, the Tribunal will dismiss the Application and confirm the Review Officer’s Order.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 14th day of July, 2006.
“Mary Ellen Cummings”
Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair
“Pauline R. Seville”
Pauline R. Seville, Member
“Margaret Kvetan”
Margaret Kvetan, Member