Phung Kim Quach v. The St. Christopher House, 2011 CanLII 21949

Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal

File No.: 4159-10-PE Date: April 20, 2011

Applicant: Phung Kim Quach Responding Parties: The St. Christopher House and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3393

Before: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair Paul LeMay, Member Pauline R. Seville, Member

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This is an employee application under section 22 of the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7 as amended (“the Act”).

2By way of decision dated March 22, 2011 the Tribunal stated that before it would accept the application, the applicant was required to provide it with a copy of the Review Officer’s Order or decision not to issue an Order. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of a Notice of Decision dated March 4, 2011 by Review Officer A. Limerick.

3To date, neither responding party has filed a response to the application. Counsel for St. Christopher House indicated in correspondence dated March 30, 2011 that it would not be filing a response until it received confirmation from the Tribunal that the applicant had complied with the Tribunal’s direction. That may have prompted the other responding party, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3393, also not to file a response

4To the extent they intend to participate in this matter, the respondents are directed to file their respective responses on or before May 6, 2011. Having reviewed the applicant’s allegations, the Tribunal is particularly interested to know what the respondents have to say in their responses about:

i. The evaluation of Ms. Quach’s job class of Finance Assistant under the pay equity plan, including the evaluation of the skills and knowledge factor under the gender neutral comparison system, having regard to the applicant’s alleged designation as a payroll administrator and her alleged signing authority;

ii. Ms. Quach’s claim that the male job class, Building Maintenance/Security, to which her job class was compared, does not exist as a bargaining unit position; and

iii. Ms. Quach’s apparent claim that she is entitled to an assessment of the value of her job class based upon proportional value.