Phung Kim Quach v. St. Christopher House, 2009 CanLII 56702

Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal

0020-09-PE Phung Kim Quach, Applicant v. St. Christopher House, and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3393, Respondents.

Before: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, Pauline R. Seville and Margaret Kvetan, Members.

Decision of the Tribunal: October 19, 2009

1This is an application to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under subsection 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, as amended (“the Act”).

2By decision dated September 25, 2009, we directed the respondents to file written submissions explaining why we should not order them to negotiate and post a pay equity plan within six months of such an order, and provide a copy of the posted plan to the applicant.

3We have received the respondents’ respective submissions. Both respondents say it is not necessary for the Tribunal to make the order described in the preceding paragraph because they are in negotiations to prepare a pay equity plan in accordance with the Act. They each rely upon a document entitled, Joint Terms of Reference for the Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Plan & Pay Equity Plan (“the Terms of Reference”) that they signed on or about the first day of hearing in this matter. That document is referred to and briefly described in paragraphs 12 and 13 of our previous decision; and at paragraph 19 and 20 of that decision, we set out our misgivings that the Terms of Reference could form the foundation for making a pay equity plan given that it did not appear to deal squarely with all of the various statutory elements of a pay equity plan. Furthermore, we expressed concern that the Terms of Reference contemplated a lengthy process, with an April 1, 2011 completion date for the job evaluation process, and no date for the posting of a pay equity plan. In their submissions, the respondents say they have committed to posting a pay equity plan by December 31, 2010.

4We have no reason to believe that the respondents are not well-intentioned regarding, or committed to, the pay equity process. However, the fact of the matter is that a pay equity plan is long overdue in this workplace, and we have expressed our concerns that, in and of itself, the Terms of Reference signed by the respondents do not fully set out a process by which pay equity can be achieved. It may well be that the respondents will between them reach further agreement concerning the elements of a pay equity plan that are not addressed in the Terms of Reference. Having said that, we are not persuaded that we should forego making an order in this matter.

5The respondent employer points out that there are 75 positions in the bargaining unit to be evaluated, and that more work remains to be done in the writing of job descriptions for approximately twenty of those positions.

6Having considered all the submissions of the respondents, we are prepared to grant some additional time for the completion and posting of a pay equity plan than the six months we originally contemplated in our previous decision. However, we are not prepared to give the respondents until December 31, 2010. That, in our view, is too long a period of time in which to meet the reasonable expectations of employees and former employees of the respondent employer concerning compliance with the Act.

7Accordingly, we direct the respondents to continue to negotiate a pay equity plan in accordance with the Act covering the employees in the bargaining unit for which the respondent union holds bargaining rights, and we direct the respondent employer to post the agreed pay equity plan in the workplace and provide the applicant with a copy on or before June 30, 2010.