0020-09-PE Phung Kim Quach, Applicant v. St. Christopher House and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3393, Respondents.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Chair, Pauline R. Seville and Margaret Kvetan, Members.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: October 14, 2010
This is a request for reconsideration under the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, as amended (“the Act”). It was filed on August 16, 2010. Although it is not entirely clear, it would appear that the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decisions dated May 25, 2009, September 25, 2009, October 19, 2009 and August 3, 2010. The applicant contends that the Tribunal has not addressed her complaint that she is paid a salary which is not proportionate to the value of her job. She says she was denied procedural fairness in the Tribunal’s decision dated August 3, 2010, which she characterizes as a dismissal of her “grievance”.
Rule 81 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice reads:
Except with the permission of the Tribunal, a Request for Reconsideration must be filed no later than twenty (20) days after the decision or order which is the subject of the request was issued by the Tribunal.
To the extent this request for reconsideration is in relation to the Tribunal’s decisions of May 25, 2009, September 25, 2009 or October 19, 2009, it is far beyond the 20-day time limit contemplated by Rule 81. Furthermore, the applicant has not offered any reason for the delay or why, despite and apart from the delay, the Tribunal should permit the late filing of a request for reconsideration in respect of those decisions.
The request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated August 3, 2010, on the other hand, is timely. As we have pointed out, the applicant says that that decision resulted in the applicant being denied procedural fairness. We assume this to mean that the Tribunal did not deal with the applicant’s concern that she is not being paid a salary proportionate to the value of her job.
Our decision dated September 25, 2009 made it clear that any pay equity adjustment to which the applicant might be entitled would be determined by the establishment of a pay equity plan that met the requirements of the Act. We found that the respondent employer and the respondent trade union had not established that they had negotiated a pay equity plan, or that the employer had posted a pay equity plan in the workplace. We also observed that there could be no basis for the applicant’s claim of entitlement to a pay equity adjustment in the absence of a pay equity plan. Our decision of October 19, 2009 ordered the employer and the union to negotiate a pay equity plan and provide it to the applicant.
As our decision dated August 3, 2010 notes, upon receipt of the pay equity plan negotiated by the respondents, the applicant raised concerns about the extent to which it complies with the Act. We pointed out to the applicant that our decision of October 19, 2009 was a final decision in this matter. We did not remain seized to deal with any further issues. Our decision of October 19, 2009 disposed of the issues that could be determined within the purview of the application. We stated that any question of the pay equity plan’s compliance must be dealt with as a fresh complaint under section 22 of the Act.
There must be extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration of a Tribunal’s decision. For example, the Tribunal may exercise its discretion to reconsider where there is new evidence or legal submissions that could not have been presented in the original hearing, and which would be practically determinative of the case; or where a highly significant change of circumstances has occurred since the decision issued warranting a change in the decision; or where the decision was wrong in law. None of these factors come into play in the request for reconsideration before us. Nor are there any other compelling reasons offered by the applicant which warrant reconsideration of any of the previous decisions in this matter.
For these reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion to reconsider the previous decisions in this matter.
The application for reconsideration is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 14th day of October, 2010.
“Patrick Kelly”
Patrick Kelly, Chair
“Pauline R. Seville”
Pauline Seville, Member
“Margaret Kvetan”
Margaret Kvetan, Member