Association of Professional Student Services Personnel v. Toronto Catholic District School Board
File No.: 2705-04-PE Date: March 23, 2006 Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
Applicant: Association of Professional Student Services Personnel Respondent: Toronto Catholic District School Board
Before: Mary Ellen Cummings, Chair, Diane Stewart Rose and Catherine Bickley Members.
Appearances: Mary Elizabeth Hart, Georgia Steinhard and Enir Bassani for the Applicant; Carole E. Hoglund, Bob Dubniak and Darlene Purkess for the Respondent
Cite As: Toronto Catholic District School Board 2705-04-PE March 23, 2006 (P.E.H.T.)
Decision of the Tribunal
Introduction
1This Application is brought by the Association of Professional Student Services Personnel (“APSSP” or “the Association”) in respect of a Review Officer’s decision dated July 12, 2004, concluding that the Review Officer would not be making an Order under section 24(3) of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, as amended (“the Act”). The Association had sought a determination that the job class called Community Relations Officer (“CRO”) is a “female job class” within the meaning of section 1(5) of the Act.
2The pay equity plan at the centre of this dispute was negotiated by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Metropolitan Separate School Board, and agreed to by those parties on February 14, 1995. They agreed that the CRO job class was “gender neutral” within the meaning of the Act. The Toronto Catholic District School Board (“the School Board”) is the successor employer to the Metropolitan Separate School Board. The Association displaced the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“OPSEU”) in 2000.
3In bringing this application, the Association acknowledges that the pay equity plan is a “deemed approved plan” within the meaning of the Act. The Association further acknowledges that there are no “changed circumstances” that make the plan no longer appropriate. More particularly, the Association is not asserting that changes in the incumbency of the CRO job class have led to this Application. Instead, the Association asserts that the initial determination that the CRO job class was a gender neutral job class is wrong. Moreover, the Association asserts that the choice made by the predecessor employer and the former union was so egregious, that it does not meet the test of reasonableness. The Association seeks a determination that the CRO is a female job class, and seeks retroactive compensation for members of that job class, to February 1995.
Evidence and Relevant Legal Principles
4The parties were able to agree on a great deal of the evidence they wished to place before the Tribunal. In addition, they agreed on the relevant statutory provisions and the applicable principles drawn from the case law. Not surprisingly, they disagreed about the outcome of applying the principles to the evidence.
In Ottawa Board of Education (No.2) (1996), 7 P.E.R. 9, the Tribunal described the standard of review it would apply when a complaint was made about some aspect of a plan that has been “deemed approved” under the Act. At paragraphs 45 and 46, the Tribunal wrote:
Some of the Part 1 portions which set out that pay equity entails use specific language and clearly articulate what the requirement or minimum standard is. As example of this sort of provision is found in the definition section, ss.1(1), where the job rate is defined as “…the highest rate of compensation for a job class”. On the other hand, there are some provisions which may refer to a range rather than a precise standard…
It is our view that the standard applicable to determining whether the contravention has been established is necessarily different, depending upon whether the provision in question sets an exact minimum standard or implies a range. Thus, where the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en