Adeptron Technologies Corporation v. Longina Frydrych
2162-10-PE Adeptron Technologies Corporation, Applicant v. Longina Frydrych, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice-Chair, Paul LeMay and Pauline R. Seville, Members.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: April 15, 2011
On August 5, 2010, a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Commission issued an Order under section 24(3) of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P.7 as amended (the “Act”), in which it, among other things, directed the Applicant, Adeptron Technologies Corporation (the “Employer” or “Adeptron”) to make a pay equity adjustment in relation to Longina Frydrych (the “Complainant”) in order to achieve pay equity. The Review Officer also found that the Employer did not post pay equity plans as required by a previous Review Officer’s Order dated December 13, 2006 issued under section 24(1) and (3) of the Act. Both the December 13, 2006 Order and the August 5, 2010 Order adopt the position that Adeptron is a successor to Prestec Electronics Limited (“Prestec”) for the purposes of the sale of business provisions contained in section 13.1 of Part II of the Act. The Employer has filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) seeking to have the Orders set aside.
A pre-hearing conference was held in this application on November 12, 2010 at which time the parties agreed that the applicant’s position concerning the application of the Act as set out in paragraphs 22 to 53 of Schedule C of the application may be dealt with by the Tribunal through the parties’ written submissions. The parties subsequently filed their submissions with the Tribunal on this issue. In reviewing those submissions, it has come to the Tribunal’s attention that the Employer’s application has the potential to reverse the Review Officer’s Orders requiring the Employer to develop and implement pay equity plans and therefore that the outcome of the application may affect past and present employees of the Employer. Past and present employees of the employer who may be affected by the outcome of the Employer’s application are referred to in this Decision as the “affected employees”. These employees are entitled to be given notice of the Employer’s application and the opportunity to participate in any proceedings arising out of the application should they wish to do so. The Tribunal also notes that it is not bound to follow the procedure set out in a pre-hearing conference memorandum, particularly where, as here, no notice of the application had previously been given to affected employees.
Section 29(1) of the Act gives the Tribunal the power to require any person seeking a determination under the Act to give written notice, in such form and manner as the Tribunal specifies, to persons that the Tribunal specifies.
As a result, the Employer is hereby directed, within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of this decision, to post a copy of the enclosed Notice to Employees, its Application and this Decision in the workplace in such location(s) where they are likely to come to the attention of any affected employees presently employed by the Employer. The Employer is further directed to mail a copy of the enclosed Notice to Employees to the last known address of each of the affected employees who are no longer employed by the Employer. The Employer is directed to advise the Tribunal in writing once the posting and mailing of the Notice to Employees has been completed.
“Caroline Rowan”
Caroline Rowan, Vice-Chair
“Paul LeMay”
Paul LeMay, Member
“Pauline R. Seville”
Pauline R. Seville, Member