OPEHT 2008

The employer applied to challenge a Review Officer's Order finding it had contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the employer's 2002 pay equity plan was the deemed approved plan and that subsequent changes, including the introduction of salary scales, did not constitute 'changed circumstances' justifying a new plan.

The Tribunal further held that the employer's salary scales violated the Act by setting steps below the pay equity adjusted wage rate or job rate.

The Tribunal varied the Review Officer's Order, directing the employer to make retroactive adjustments, pay wage gaps, and properly distribute the mandatory 1% of payroll for pay equity adjustments.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his pay equity application for delay.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal's process was flawed and that the decision was wrong in law.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant had not raised any new facts or legal arguments that would warrant altering the original decision.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to make submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to hear a new application objecting to a revised pay equity plan.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application as an abuse of process.

The underlying application attempted to re-litigate the gender predominance of a single-incumbent position, which had already been determined in an earlier proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case using submissions he had the opportunity to make prior to the dismissal.

The parties sought a preliminary determination on the interpretation of subsections 6(4) and 6(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The union argued that if no male comparator is found within the inside bargaining unit, the female job class must be compared to a male comparator in the outside bargaining unit before looking establishment-wide.

The tribunal agreed with the review officer and the employer, holding that subsection 6(4) only requires comparison within the same bargaining unit, and if no comparator is found, subsection 6(5) permits comparison throughout the establishment.

The applicant union sought to recover retroactive pay equity adjustments on behalf of its members from their former employer.

Because the union could not determine the exact amounts owed to individual employees, it requested that the Tribunal summons the employer's principal to attend a hearing with the necessary documents.

The Tribunal directed the union to obtain a signed summons from the Registrar, complete it, and serve it personally on the principal in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction to the applicant.

Having previously directed the applicant to address a preliminary question regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Tribunal found it may have jurisdiction but raised concerns about the applicant's standing as a former employee and whether the application constitutes an abuse of process.

The applicant was directed to file written submissions addressing these concerns.

The applicant requested that an upcoming hearing be converted into a further pre-hearing conference to address outstanding preliminary matters.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined the request, determining that the preliminary issues could be dealt with by the hearing panel at the outset of the scheduled hearing.