OPEHT 2010

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2296, sought to withdraw its application against the Children's Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The employer applied for a review of a Review Officer's order concerning its pay equity processes.

The employer argued it had achieved pay equity prior to the certification of the displacing trade union and relied on a pay equity agreement reached with the predecessor union.

The Tribunal found that the employer's initial pay equity analysis was flawed due to inadequate job content recording and failure to compare total compensation.

Consequently, the subsequent pay equity agreement with the predecessor union was based on a false premise and did not achieve pay equity.

The Tribunal confirmed the Review Officer's finding regarding the employer's establishment but varied the order, directing the employer to achieve pay equity within 90 days and provide all relevant information to the displacing union, without compelling the parties to negotiate the achievement of pay equity under Part I of the Act.

The Pay Equity Office requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that set aside a Review Officer's Order against Queensway Nursing Home.

The Tribunal had previously found that it was impossible for Queensway to comply with the Order and that the delay in issuing it amounted to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the Office standing to seek reconsideration because it had declined an earlier invitation to participate in the proceedings.

Alternatively, the Tribunal found that the reconsideration request failed on its merits, as the Office did not establish any errors of law in the original decision.

The parties submitted a joint request to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates and change the filing dates for submissions.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the dates had already been changed once to accommodate the parties, the current dates were set at their request, and no reason was provided for the new request.

The applicant union and respondent employer were scheduled for a pre-hearing conference.

The parties requested an adjournment after reaching an agreement.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 10-day period but submitted a letter requesting an extension of time to comply with the underlying Order.

The Tribunal clarified that varying the Order requires a separate application and denied the lengthy extension requested, but granted a brief extension to December 20, 2010, for the respondent to file its response.

The applicant requested an extension of timelines for filing submissions, with the consent of the responding party.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and amended its previous decision to set new deadlines for the delivery and filing of submissions, and directed the Registrar to schedule two days of hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal received a request to schedule a two-day hearing regarding an outstanding issue concerning the gender of a job class.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the applicant and respondent to file statements of issues, facts, witness lists, and documents within specified timelines.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule the hearing.

The Pay Equity Office requested intervenor status in an application for review of a Review Officer's order.

The applicant employer objected, arguing the PEO had notice and the hearing had already taken place.

The Tribunal granted the PEO's request, finding the PEO had an interest in the challenge to its processes, did not have adequate notice of the hearing, and its participation would benefit the determination of the issues.

A fresh hearing was ordered.

The applicant municipality applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's order that invalidated its 2006 amended pay equity plan.

The Review Officer had concluded that the municipality improperly split female job classes and compared them to lower-paid male comparators, thereby failing to maintain pay equity.

The Tribunal reviewed the job evaluations and found that the municipality's assessment of the positions, including the male comparator job class, was reasonable.

The Tribunal also found that the municipality did not contravene the Pay Equity Act by selecting different male comparators for different female job classes within the same band.

The Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's order and upheld the 2006 pay equity plan.

The applicant purchased the assets of a motel business from the predecessor employer.

A Review Officer ordered the applicant and the predecessor to be jointly and severally liable for retroactive pay equity adjustments owed to the predecessor's former employees.

The applicant sought a variance of the order, arguing it was not a successor employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the sale of business provisions in Part II of the Act only apply to public sector employers or large private sector employers with 100 or more employees.

Since the motel was a small private sector employer, the successor obligations did not apply.

The Tribunal varied the order to remove the applicant's joint and several liability.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the application, which the Tribunal granted.

The application was adjourned sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The union applied for a review of a Review Officer's order directing the implementation of a pay equity plan using the proportional value method retroactive to January 1, 2006.

The union argued the parties had agreed to a Combined Method (job-to-job and proportional value) and that the Pay Equity Act required it.

The Tribunal found no factual agreement to use the Combined Method and held that the Act did not compel its use since pay equity had already been achieved under the original plan.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a self-represented employee of the respondent police association, applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking a compensation adjustment.

She argued that two executive positions (Administrator and Executive Officer) should be included as male comparators in the proportional value (PV) analysis.

The Tribunal found that the executive positions were not 'representative male job classes' under the Pay Equity Act because their compensation was anomalous, pegged to an external referent (police constable salaries), and not reflective of the employer's overall compensation practices.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that even if the applicant's job were re-evaluated at the maximum points, no pay equity adjustment would be required based on the appropriate male wage line.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's allegations of bias against the Vice-Chair.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of four previous Tribunal decisions concerning her pay equity complaint.

The Tribunal found that the requests regarding the three 2009 decisions were filed well beyond the 20-day time limit under Rule 81, with no reasons provided for the delay.

While the request regarding the August 2010 decision was timely, the Tribunal found no extraordinary circumstances—such as new evidence, a significant change in circumstances, or an error of law—to justify reconsideration.

The Tribunal reiterated that the applicant's concerns about the newly negotiated pay equity plan's compliance must be raised in a fresh complaint under section 22 of the Pay Equity Act.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The Employer filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a Review Officer's Order requiring it to prepare and post a proxy pay equity plan.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to provide written notice of the application to all affected past and present employees, as they may be affected by the outcome and have a right to participate.

The Pay Equity Commission brought a referral application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party failed to file submissions in response to a previous decision.

The Tribunal found that the responding party had not complied with the Order issued against it and directed the payment of $5,268.35 plus interest to the affected employee.

The applicant nursing home sought to set aside a Review Officer's Order which found its 1995 pay equity plan invalid and directed it to prepare a new plan with retroactive adjustments to 1994.

The anonymous complaint leading to the Order was filed in 2003, eight years after the plan was posted, and the Order was not issued until 2008.

The Tribunal found that the extensive delay made it impossible for the employer to comply with the Order due to the loss of historical records.

Furthermore, the delay compromised the employer's ability to have a fair hearing and amounted to an abuse of process.

The Review Officer's Order was revoked.

The applicant employer filed written submissions and an accountant's report arguing its calculations of pay equity liability satisfied the Pay Equity Act.

A responding employee disagreed, maintaining the Review Officer's Order should be upheld.

The Tribunal found it could not resolve the material dispute of fact regarding the calculations and the apparent lack of a proxy pay equity plan based solely on written submissions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a full oral hearing.

The Pay Equity Commission applied for enforcement of a Review Officer Order against the Employer.

The Employer had previously acknowledged non-compliance but failed to take corrective steps.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to file written submissions showing cause why it should not be found in non-compliance and ordered to pay the outstanding amount of $5268.35 plus interest.