3829-10-PE Sandra Taziker, Heather Stork, Ruby Robitaille, Jennifer Valdez, Gilda Everett, Brenda Andreatta, Marian Drouillard, Steven Vlachodimos, Vince Messina, Mary Rodgers, Julie Tonkin, Winnie Lee, Alena Sleziak, Beverly Timmins, Celia Southward, Laurie Parent, Applicants v. The Corporation of the City of Windsor, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Diane L. Gee, Chair.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: March 25, 2011
1. On November 8, 2010 a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Commission issued an Order in which the Corporation of the City of Windsor (the “Employer) was directed to amend its non-union pay equity plan for the period of February 2, 2003 to December 31, 2004 as described in the Order and repost the amended plan. In the Order, the Review Officer refers to the plan as the “2005 Plan” as the plan that was the subject of the Order was originally posted in 2005. For the sake of consistency I too will refer to the Plan as the 2005 Plan but wish to be clear that the 2005 Plan applies to the period of only February 2, 2003 to December 31, 2004.
2. The Employer complied with the Order and posted the amended 2005 Plan on or about January 19, 2011.
3. Two things occurred following the Employer’s posting of the amended 2005 Plan. First, on or about February 9, 2011 Sandra Taziker filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal pursuant to section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act (the “Act”) in which she seeks to have the Order set aside in so far as it relates to the position of Manager of Compliance & Enforcement – Mobile Unit. Ms. Taziker asserts that the position has been undervalued.
4. The second thing that has occurred is that numerous employees have filed objections to the amended 2005 Plan with the Pay Equity Office as they are entitled to do pursuant to section 16(4) of the Act. These objections take issue with various aspects of the amended 2005 Plan.
5. Section 17 of the Act provides that, where the Commission receives a notice of objection under section 16(4) it is the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, and not the Commission, that is to settle the pay equity plan that is the subject of the objection.
6. Given that the Tribunal has, as a result of the application it received from Ms. Taziker, already opened a file that relates to the amended 2005 Plan, the Tribunal has decided to combine all of the objections that have been filed in relation to the amended 2005 Plan into this one file. Attached to this decision is a Schedule A listing those individuals who the Tribunal understands to have both filed an application with the Tribunal and/or filed a notice of objection with the Commission. All of these individuals are, effective immediately, considered to be applicants in File No. 3829-10-PE. The Pay Equity Office is hereby directed to forward to the Tribunal any additional notices of objection that it has received to date or receives in the future relating to the amended 2005 Plan.
7. Each of the applicants in this matter, with the exception of Ms. Taziker who has already done so, are hereby directed to complete a “Form 1 – Application” available from the Tribunal’s website under Forms and Rules (http://www.olrb.gov.on.ca/pec/peht/index.html). The Form 1 – Application must be delivered by each applicant to each and every one of the other applicants and the Employer no later than 15 days after the date of this decision. In addition, each applicant is required to deliver (1) a copy of their application; and (2) a statement certifying that they have delivered their application to each of the other applicants as well as the responding party to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal no later than 15 days from the date of this decision.
8. Any applicant who does not deliver and file a fully completed Form 1 – Application within 15 days of this decision may not be permitted to participate any further in these proceedings.
9. Once the filing deadline has passed, the Tribunal will review the applications that have been filed and provide the parties with further direction. The Employer is not required to file any further response until directed to do so.
10. Applicants should bear in mind that where an employer is required to make a decision in an area where there are a range of reasonable outcomes, the decision made by the employer does not have to be “correct”. Rather, the employer’s decision must be “reasonable”. The process of evaluating jobs is one of those areas where there is no one correct answer. Reasonable people can disagree. Where this occurs, provided the employer’s, or perhaps as in this case the Review Officers’, decision is reasonable, the Tribunal is unlikely to interfere with the decision that has been made.
“Diane L. Gee”
Diane L. Gee, Chair
Mrs. Heather Stork 350 City Hall Square West, RM 101 Windsor, Ontario N9A 6S1
Mrs. Julie Tonkin 317 St. Pierre Street Tecumseh, Ontario N8N 1Z1
Mrs. Ruby Robitaille 161 Terra Lou Drive Belle River, Ontario N0R 1A0
Mrs. Winnie Lee 241 Old Tecumseh Road Tecumseh, Ontario N8N 3S9
Ms. Jennifer Valdez 8787 McHugh Street Windsor, Ontario N8S 0A1
Ms. Alena Sleziak 209 Vernon Crescent Windsor, Ontario N8S 1R3
Mrs. Gilda Everett 261 Flanders Road Tecumseh, Ontario N8N 3G2
Mrs. Beverly Timmins 2410 Academy Drive Windsor, Ontario N9E 2G6
Ms. Brenda Andreatta 3060 St. Patrick Drive Windsor, Ontario N9E 4C2
Ms. Celia Southward 4580 Howard Avenue Windsor, Ontario N9G 1P4
Mrs. Marian Drouillard 162 Hayes Avenue Tecumseh, Ontario N8N 2X5
Ms. Laurie Parent c/o City of Windsor 171 Goyeau Street Windsor, Ontario N9A 1G5
Mr. Steve Vlachodimos 4272 Patrick Avenue Windsor, Ontario N9G 2X8
Ms. Mary Rodgers 1145 Outram Avenue Lasalle, Ontario N9J 3R9
Mr. Vince Messina 400 City Hall Square East P.O. Box 150 Windsor, Ontario N9A 8K1