0404-07-PE Fairlane Machine Tools Ltd., Applicant v. Madeleine Godin, Anne Vanderstelt and Natalie Jones, Respondents.
BEFORE: Mary Anne McKellar, Vice-Chair, Margaret Kvetan and Pauline R. Seville Members.
APPEARANCES:
CITE AS: Fairlane Machine Tools Ltd. (22 June 2007) (0404-07-PE) (P.E.H.T.)
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL; June 22, 2007
This is an application under the Pay Equity Act (“the Act”) objecting to the Order of a Review Officer dated September 28, 2006 (“the Order”). The application was filed with the Tribunal on April 30, 2007.
The Applicant (“Fairlane”) seeks further time to comply with the Review Officer’s direction that it take certain steps with respect to the implementation of pay equity, and it seeks to revoke that aspect of the Order directing it to pay interest to any employees ultimately found to be entitled to pay equity adjustments on the basis that the Review Officer was without jurisdiction to so order. Aside from the question of interest, the Order directed that Fairlane complete a number of discrete tasks and report to the Review Officer by specified times, with the ultimate deadline for the implementation of pay equity and payout of all adjustments being 6 months from the date of the Order. It appears from the pleadings that Fairlane has complied with the directions and timelines respecting only the first of the tasks identified by the Review Officer.
No response has been filed to this application.
It appears to us that it may be premature at this point to address the question of whether the Review Officer had jurisdiction to order interest on any pay equity adjustments, although we do note that, regardless of the jurisdiction of the Review Officer, the Tribunal itself has ordered interest be paid on outstanding pay equity adjustments. See Peterborough (Clow) No.3 (1996) 7 P.E.R. 33 and Brant Haldimand Norfolk District School Board (13 April 2006) (P.E.H.T.). Until it is clear what, if any, pay equity adjustments may be required, there is little utility in convening a hearing into this issue. Once the principal amount of any adjustments has been determined, Fairlane will be in a better position to advance its arguments on this point, which may, for example, include arguments not only about whether interest is payable, but also about how it should be calculated.
In all the circumstances, we have determined that it is appropriate to adjourn this application sine die until September 21, 2007 to permit Fairlane to complete the tasks identified by the Review Officer, tasks which we do not understand Fairlane has any objection to doing. Given that this is a relatively small employer (fewer than 20 employees) and that this proposed adjournment provides Fairlane with almost twice as much time to complete its tasks as did the Order, we anticipate that Fairlane will be able to fulfill its obligations under the Act within that time period. Unless Fairlane advises the Tribunal on or before September 21, 2007 that it has completed the tasks outlined in the Order and that it requires the Tribunal to deal with the question of whether interest is payable and how it should be calculated, this application will be dismissed without further notice as of September 21, 2007.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 22nd day of June, 2007.
“Mary Anne McKellar”
Mary Anne McKellar, Vice Chair
“Margaret Kvetan”
Margaret Kvetan, Member
“Pauline R. Seville”
Pauline R. Seville, Member