OPEHT 2011

The Pay Equity Commission filed an application under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act asserting that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

The employer did not file a response to the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the employer to deliver and file written submissions within 10 days explaining why the Tribunal should not find it in non-compliance and grant the requested remedies.

The applicant union and responding party employer agreed to an extension of time for the filing of a response.

The Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the responding party an extension to May 16, 2011, on consent.

The applicant employer sought to rescind an Order of a Review Officer under the Pay Equity Act, bringing a preliminary motion based on alleged delay and abuse of process.

The Pay Equity Office brought a cross-motion to strike those portions of the application.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the filing of motion materials, responses, and reply submissions, and scheduled a hearing to deal with the preliminary motions and any related evidentiary disputes.

The employer requested an amendment to a Tribunal direction requiring it to mail a Notice to Employees to all affected former employees, arguing that manually searching for the addresses of 400 former employees not in its computerized system would be overly burdensome.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that natural justice requires all affected employees to be notified so they are bound by the outcome of the successor rights proceeding.

However, the Tribunal extended the deadline for compliance from 15 to 60 days.

The applicant filed an employee application under section 22 of the Pay Equity Act.

After the applicant complied with a previous direction to provide a copy of the Review Officer's decision, the respondents had not yet filed their responses.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file their responses by May 6, 2011, and specifically requested they address the evaluation of the applicant's job class, the existence of the comparator male job class, and the applicant's claim for proportional value assessment.

The Tribunal issued a decision to correct a clerical error in the Notice to Employees enclosed with an earlier decision.

The date for filing a response was corrected to May 16, 2011, and an Amended Notice to Employees was provided.

The applicant employer sought to set aside a Review Officer's orders requiring it to make pay equity adjustments and post pay equity plans, based on a finding that it was a successor employer.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined that the outcome of the application could affect past and present employees.

Pursuant to section 29(1) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal directed the employer to post and mail notices of the application to all affected employees to provide them an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

The Civic Association of Non-Union Employees (CANUE) requested an extension of time to file a response and represent employees objecting to the 2005 Pay Equity Plan posted by the employer.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to June 15, 2011, and directed CANUE to provide a list of employees it represents.

The Tribunal also directed the employer to bring the decision to the attention of the employees and noted that the employer is not required to file a response until directed to do so.

The applicant employer and respondent union consented to the Tribunal resolving their outstanding disputes regarding a Pay Equity Plan based on filed materials.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to execute a Pay Equity Plan incorporating agreed-upon job class bands, male comparators, and retroactive adjustment dates as set out in an appendix.

The Order of the Review Officer was varied accordingly.

The parties previously agreed to adjourn the matter sine die to January 1, 2011.

As neither party requested that the matter be scheduled for a hearing, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a further period of one year, noting that it will be deemed terminated if no request for a hearing is made within that time.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal received an application to set aside a Review Officer's order regarding an amended pay equity plan, as well as numerous objections to the plan from other employees.

The Tribunal directed that all objections be combined into a single file and ordered the applicants to file formal applications within 15 days.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a complaint made to the Pay Equity Commission.

The application did not include a copy of the Review Officer's Order or decision, nor did it explain why the Tribunal should accept the application before the Review Officer concluded their investigation.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the missing documents or an explanation within 10 days, failing which the application would be automatically terminated.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die.

The Tribunal ordered the matter adjourned for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The union requested a teleconference regarding the employer's alleged failure to communicate its progress in achieving pay equity, as ordered in a previous decision.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that the 90-day compliance period had not yet expired.

The union may renew its request if the employer fails to comply after the period expires.

The applicant, Norwood Nursing Home, applied to revoke a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office filed a motion seeking standing to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the Pay Equity Office standing to intervene, finding that its expertise concerning policy, factual, or legal issues would assist the Tribunal.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for a pre-hearing conference.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months.

The Tribunal ordered the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice if no party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant failed to file an Amended Application and a letter from its auditors as directed by a previous Tribunal decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the matter.

The applicant employer sought clarification on whether a schedule detailing employee names and amounts owing, as found by the Review Officer, should be included with the Order when distributed to existing and former employees.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that the schedule must be included with the Order as per its previous direction.

The employer, Three Trilliums Community Place Inc., filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal seeking to revoke or vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The orders found the employer to be a seeking employer for the proxy method of comparison and that it failed to implement a pay equity plan.

The employer argues it is not a public sector employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal issued a Notice to Employees advising them of the application and their right to participate in the proceedings.

The parties filed applications with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The applications were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.