Alexander Rogovik v. St. Michael’s Hospital, 2011 CanLII 83012

Alexander Rogovik v. St. Michael’s Hospital

File No.: 1675-11-PE Date: December 21, 2011

Before: Mary Anne McKellar, Vice-Chair

Appearances: Alexander Rogovik appearing for the applicant Angela Bradley and Arthur Bosua appearing for the responding party

Decision of the Tribunal

1This is an application under the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, as amended ("the Act").

2The applicant ("Rogovic") objects to the decision of a Review Officer dismissing his complaint that the respondent ("the Hospital") contravened the Act.

3I convened a Pre-Hearing Conference with respect to this application on December 21, 2011. Following on my discussion with the parties, it was agreed that I would issue a decision to elicit some clarification of the issues the applicant wishes the Tribunal to address. At present, the pleadings in his application primarily take issue with the contents of the Review Officer’s Notice of Decision, but do not clearly set out the facts he relies on in asserting that the Hospital has contravened the Act.

4The basic facts are not in dispute. Rogovic was employed by the Hospital from 2005 until January 25, 2011. He was employed as a Research Assistant pursuant to a series of contracts, the last of which was due to expire at the end of January 2011, but which was terminated several days earlier on January 25, 2011. The Hospital’s pay equity plan identifies Research Assistant as a female job class. Rogovic asked the Hospital for a pay raise on several occasions.

5Rogovic is therefore directed to deliver to the Hospital and to file with the Registrar of the Tribunal written representations addressing the following questions:

a) On how many occasions did he seek a pay raise from the Hospital?

b) With respect to each of those occasions, what individual(s) did he speak to?

c) What rationale for the pay raise did he articulate on each occasion, and what response was provided?

d) Were any of the requests for a raise expressly linked to the requirements of the Act?

e) I understand Rogovic to be asserting that he should be paid the same rate as the Senior Scientist. What is the rationale for that position?

f) Does Rogovic also assert that all Research Assistants should be paid at the Senior Scientist rate? What is the rationale for that position?

g) If Rogovic asserts that he should have been compensated differently from the other Research Assistants, how is it that the Hospital’s failure to do so contravened the Act? and

h) Any other facts that Rogovic feels are pertinent to his assertion that the Act has been contravened and which are not raised by the preceding questions.

6Rogovic’s written representations addressing the above issues are to be served and filed by January 9, 2012.

7The Hospital shall have until January 23, 2012 in which to file any response to Rogovic’s representations.

8On the basis of the information exchanged at the Pre-Hearing Conference, the parties anticipated that this application would require a single day of hearing. The file is therefore referred to the Registrar for the purpose of scheduling a hearing at any time on or after February 6, 2012.

9I am not seized of any of the matters addressed in this decision.