OPEHT 2007

The Belleville Police Services Board applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning a wage gap.

The parties submitted a Pay Equity Agreement settling the matter.

The Tribunal found the parties had settled the matter pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, requiring no further intervention.

The Pay Equity Office brought an application to enforce a review officer's order requiring the employer to post a pay equity plan and make retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The employer failed to respond to the application or attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the employer had breached its undertakings and failed to comply with the order.

The Tribunal confirmed the review officer's order and directed the employer to post the plan and commence retroactive payments, noting that the order could be filed with the Superior Court of Justice for enforcement.

The employer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed a Review Officer's order requiring the preparation and posting of a pay equity plan.

The employer argued that the Tribunal breached the principles of natural justice by allegedly declining to receive evidence from several witnesses at the original hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the employer's counsel had chosen not to call the witnesses and that the employer was not denied a fair hearing.

The employer failed to meet any of the established factors for reconsideration.

The Employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's Order and sought a declaration that pay equity had been achieved for certain job classes.

During the hearing on the merits, the Employer's witness testified about a board motion increasing the hourly wage of the Executive Director's job class.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal directed the Employer to provide a certified copy of the official minutes of the Board meeting or an affidavit, and to clarify whether the increase was a one-time event or an annual occurrence.

The applicant, a Communication Supervisor, applied to the Tribunal to review a Review Officer's decision finding no contravention of the Pay Equity Act by the employer and union.

The applicant alleged that her new position should have been evaluated consistently with an eliminated male-dominated position, and raised issues regarding banding and delayed re-evaluation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of a contravention, as the Act does not require historical consistency in job evaluations or internal consistency between female job classes.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) applied to enforce a Review Officer's order against the employer, while the employer subsequently applied to set aside the order on its merits.

The Tribunal stayed the PEO's enforcement application pending the outcome of the employer's application on the merits.

The Tribunal also directed the employer to provide notice of the proceedings to the former employer and to current and former employees, as the order involved a potential sale of a business and retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The PEO was directed to clarify whether the original complainants still wished to remain anonymous.

The Vice-Chair dissented in part, arguing that the parties should have been given an opportunity to make submissions before the enforcement application was stayed.

The employer and union challenged a Review Office Order regarding their negotiated pay equity plan.

The central issue was whether tips should be included in the calculation of 'compensation' for determining the 'job rate' of Casino Cashiers under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that tips can be included in compensation as they are ascertainable.

However, the Tribunal found that the process used by the employer and union to estimate the tip rate was unreasonable because they failed to use available, accurate tracking methods.

The Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's Order and directed prospective tip tracking for the Casino Cashiers and their male comparator group to accurately determine the tip rate.

The applicant employer filed an application objecting to a Review Officer's order directing it to implement pay equity and pay interest on any adjustments.

The employer sought more time to comply and argued the Review Officer lacked jurisdiction to order interest.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die to allow the employer to complete the required tasks, noting it was premature to address the interest issue until the principal amount of any adjustments was determined.