PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL
3529-09-PE Pay Equity Commission, Applicant v. Corsteel Hydraulics Ltd., Respondent.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, Margaret Kvetan and Pauline R. Seville, Members.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: August 5, 2010
This is a referral under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P.7 as amended (the “Act”).
The Pay Equity Office (“the Office” or “the applicant”) asserts that the responding party employer (“the employer”) has not complied with the Order issued by Review Officer Tiziana Isgro (“the Officer”) on December 18, 2009 (“the Order”). The Order directed the employer to take a number of steps to achieve pay equity in the workplace, as follows:
To distribute a questionnaire or otherwise collect job content information for each of the female job classes that have existed at Corsteel Hydraulics Ltd. since 1994, and to collect job content information in the same manner from potential male comparator job classes in the establishment. I order the Employer to have this information collected and to provide copies to me by no later than Fourteen (14) days after the date this Order is issued.
To evaluate each of the job classes for which information was collected, using a gender neutral comparison system which incorporates the factors of skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. I order the Employer to have these evaluations completed, within Thirty (30) days of the day this Order is issued. Furthermore I order the Employer to provide me with copies of its gender neutral comparison system and the job evaluation results, by subfactor, for all the job classes it evaluated for pay equity purposes by Thirty (30) days of the day this Order is issued. Furthermore I order the Employer to provide me with copies of its gender neutral comparison system and the job evaluation results, by subfactor, for all the job classes it evaluated for pay equity purposes by Thirty (30) days of the day this order is issued.
To identify a comparator for each of the female job classes under consideration, or, for any unmatched female job classes, to identify a comparison under the proportional value method of comparison. I order the Employer to identify these comparisons, and to provide me with documentation outlining these comparisons, within Forty (40) days of the day this Order is issued.
To calculate the differences in the job rate for each of the female job classes under consideration, and their comparators, for the period from January 1, 1994 to current date using the Comparison Chart by Sixty (60) days of the day this Order is issued. A blank Comparison Chart is attached as Scheduled A and forms part of this order.
I order the Employer to pay interest on all retroactive adjustments, if any are required, in accordance with the calculation process established in Hallowell House Ltd., [1980] OLRB Rep. Jan. 35 which has been followed and applied by the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal in Clow (No. 3) (1996), 7 P.E.R. 33. After calculating the amount owed to each employee or former employee, the amount is divided in half and the Bank of Canada prime date of interest at the time the first payment was required is applied. I order that these calculations be completed, and calculations provided to me, within Sixty (60) days of the day this Order is issued.
To pay any and all outstanding pay equity adjustments, and to provide me with proof of payment, within Ninety (90) days of the day this order is issued.
Pursuant to subsection 32(1.1) of the Act, I order the Employer to post on the date of receipt a copy of this Order a copy in a prominent place in the workplace which is accessible to all employees, and to forward a copy by mail, within two days of receipt of this Order, to any former employees of the company who worked in a female dominated job class at any time since January 1, 1994. I order the Employer to advise me of having satisfied the orders in 7 in writing by Ten (10) days of the date of issue of this Order.
By letter dated June 21, 2010, counsel for the Office requested that the Tribunal deal with the application, without a hearing, and confirm the Officer’s Order that the employer has contravened the Act. In the alternative, the Office requested that the Tribunal schedule a hearing.
By decision dated July 19, 2010, we directed the responding party to respond to the request of the Office that the Tribunal confirm the Officer’s Order that the employer contravened the Act, without an oral hearing. The Tribunal did not receive any timely submissions from the employer. (Moreover, the employer did not file a response to the application and failed to attend the Tribunal’s Pre-Hearing Conference.)
Pursuant to section 24(5.3) of the Act, the employer bears the onus of establishing that it has complied with the Order. It has not demonstrated compliance. Consequently, we find that the employer has failed to comply with the Order.
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of August, 2010.
“Patrick Kelly”
Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair
“Margaret Kvetan”
Margaret Kvetan, Member
“Pauline R. Seville”
Pauline R. Seville, Member