OPEHT 2011

At a pre-hearing conference for an application under the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal found that the applicant's pleadings did not clearly set out the facts relied upon to assert a contravention by the responding hospital.

The Tribunal directed the self-represented applicant to file written representations answering specific questions about his requests for a pay raise and his assertion that he should be paid at the Senior Scientist rate, and set a schedule for the hospital's response.

The Pay Equity Commission brought an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's orders to pay specified amounts to employees.

The employer did not file a response.

The Tribunal determined to proceed by written hearing and directed the employer to file written submissions establishing compliance, noting that the employer bears the onus of proof under section 24(5.3) of the Act.

The applicant and one of the responding parties, Longina Frydrych, reached an agreement.

Having regard to this agreement, the Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of one year.

The Tribunal noted that unless a party requests the matter be scheduled for a hearing within that period, it will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal disputing a Review Officer's decision regarding the appropriate comparator position for the female-dominated Office Manager role.

The employer maintained the comparator should be the Senior Carpenter/Lead Hand, while the applicant argued it should be the Project Manager.

The Tribunal directed the employer to confirm service of its correspondence and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a pre-hearing consultation.

The applicant, Ontario Nurses' Association, requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act against the Municipality of Chatham Kent.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application challenging a Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Commission but failed to file a copy of the decision or a Statement of Service.

The Tribunal initially dismissed the application.

However, after the Commission provided the Tribunal with a copy of the Notice of Decision, the Tribunal revoked its dismissal.

The Tribunal directed that a copy of the application be sent to the responding party and ordered the responding party to file any response within 10 days.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file a copy of the Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Office.

The applicant filed documents relating to proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, but no Notice of Decision from the Pay Equity Office.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that an application can only be filed with the Tribunal if a complaint was first filed with the Pay Equity Commission and a decision was issued.

Counsel for Touchstone Youth Centre requested an adjournment of a scheduled Pre-Hearing Conference, having obtained consent from the majority of the other parties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment request and directed the Registrar to reschedule the conference.

The applicant requested a further extension of time to file its application because the mediation process had not yet concluded.

The Tribunal granted the extension to December 31, 2011.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal decide the application based on written submissions exchanged with one respondent, pursuant to a pre-hearing conference memorandum.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that four additional respondents had subsequently intervened and were not bound by the memorandum.

The Tribunal directed all parties to attend the scheduled hearing prepared to lead evidence and proceed with the application in its entirety, as there was no agreement on facts or procedure among all parties.

The Union requested that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal proceed with resolving outstanding issues despite proposing mediation to the employer.

The employer opposed the request, arguing the parties had agreed to mediate.

Given the time the applications had been outstanding, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing to determine whether the EPP Operator job class is gender neutral.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal but failed to file a copy of the Notice of Decision or a completed Statement of Service as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file the required documents within 7 days, failing which the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant union filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

At a pre-hearing consultation, the parties resolved the issues and entered into a settlement under section 25.1 of the Act.

Having regard to the settlement, the Tribunal terminated the application.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application against the responding parties.

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

The responding party requested an extension of time for the applicants to file their application, as the parties had retained a mediator to assist in resolving the dispute.

The Tribunal granted the extension to November 30, 2011.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the non-union employees of Touchstone Youth Centre.

The employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act seeking to revoke an Order issued by a Review Officer, asserting that no pay equity adjustments are owed.

The Tribunal directed the employer to post the notice and advised employees of their right to participate by filing a Response by October 18, 2011.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 25(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party, Touchstone Youth Centre, challenged the merits of the underlying Order.

Because the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of an Order on a section 25(5) referral, it deemed the response to be an application under section 25(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal issued directions for posting and mailing notices to affected employees.

The applicant and responding party agreed to an extension of time for the responding party to file its response.

The Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to September 28, 2011, on consent.

The responding party requested an extension of time to deliver and file its response.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to September 9, 2011, and noted that the applicant's reply must be filed within five days of being served with the response pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.