Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
3046-10-PE The Moosonee Native Friendship Centre, Applicant v. Employees of the Employer not represented by a bargaining agent, Respondents.
BEFORE: Diane L. Gee, Chair.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: January 10, 2011
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal is in receipt of an application by the Moosonee Native Friendship Centre (the “Employer”) that concerns an Order issued by a Review Officer on August 20, 2010 (the “Order”).
It would appear that the Employer cooperated with the Officer and, under her supervision, calculated the amounts owing to former and current employees. This information was then set out in a chart listing the name of each employee and the amount owing to them. The Officer then ordered the Employer to pay all the amounts set out in the “owing” column of the chart and attached the chart to her Order as Appendix A.
In the Employer’s application, the Employer pleads as follows:
The Moosonee Native Friendship Centre is appealing the decision on the total liability calculation for 1994 to 2010. This appeal is based on the Auditors for the Friendship Centre for 2009-2010 indicating that the compounding may be incorrect. The Auditors have a different definition and methodology for calculating compounding formula; therefore is the sole purpose of The Moosenee Native Friendship Centres’ appeal.
- In the section of the application asking the applicant what remedy it seeks the Employer writes:
The Moosonee Native Friendship Centre wishes and hopes to review the compounding formula to determine the accuracy of the total liability amount requested for the Moosonee Native Friendship Centre to pay.
In the normal course of an employer appeal of an Order, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal orders the employer to post in the workplace and mail to all former and current employees who may be affected by the application a copy of the Application as well as a copy of a Notice to Employees prepared by the Tribunal and provided to the employer. The purpose of the posting and mailings is to inform employees of the application and invite them to file a response to the application with the Tribunal if they wish to do so.
The difficulty in this case is that it is impossible to tell from the application if the Employer is in fact saying that the compounding used to arrive at the numbers set out in Appendix A was incorrect. Further, if the Employer is asserting that the compounding formula used was incorrect it is impossible to tell from the application whether the use of a different compounding formula would change the amounts owing to the former and current employees. In the absence of this information, there is no purpose to be served in proving the employees with notice of the application.
Accordingly, the Employer is hereby ordered to file a new Application Form with the Tribunal on which it will clearly and in bold print write across the top “AMENDED APPLICATION: PEHT FILE No. 3046-10-PE”. The Employer’s Amended Application it to clearly set out the following:
- what compounding formula was used to calculate the amounts set out on Appendix A to the Order;
- what compounding formula it now asserts ought to have been used;
- what amounts each of the individuals listed on Appendix A would be entitled to under the compounding formula the Employer now asserts ought to have been used. These amounts are to be set out in a chart similar to Appendix A. This chart is to be labelled Appendix B.
In addition, the Employer is required to file with its Amended Application a letter from its Auditors stating their opinion that the compounding formula used in creating Appendix A was incorrect. The Auditors’ letter must further set out what, in their opinion, is the correct compounding formula and that the application of such formula would result in the amounts set out in Appendix B.
The Employer is required to file the Amended Application as described above and the letter from its Auditors with the Tribunal no later than February 10, 2011 failing which this application will be deemed terminated.
Dated at Toronto this 10^th^ day of January, 2011.
“Diane L. Gee”
Diane L. Gee, Chair