Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal

1675-11-PE Alexander Rogovik, Applicant v. St. Michael’s Hospital, Responding Party.

BEFORE: Diane L. Gee, Chair.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: March 6, 2012

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

[2]. On or about February 1, 2011 the applicant made a complaint to the Pay Equity Commission alleging that he disagreed with the results of pay equity, that pay equity was not being maintained and that St. Michael’s Hospital (the “Employer”) terminated his employment because of pay equity. By way of Notice of Decision dated June 23, 2011, the Review Officer dismissed the applicant’s complaint.

[3]. On August 17, 2011, the applicant filed the instant application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). The applicant asserts that his employment with St. Michael’s Hospital was terminated because he exercised rights under the Act. The applicant further asserts that his job class was Research Assistant I, a female job class, and that the value of his work was equal to that of the male job class of Research Scientist/Senior Scientist. The applicant raises numerous other complaints in his application which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

[4]. On December 21, 2011 the Tribunal convened a Pre-Hearing Conference. At that conference, the Tribunal determined that the application lacked a clear statement of facts that the applicant was relying upon in support of his assertion that the Employer had contravened the Act. The applicant was directed to deliver to the Employer and file with the Tribunal, no later than January 9, 2012, written representations addressing a number of specific questions posed by the Tribunal. The questions were designed to elicit from the applicant the facts relevant to a complaint that the Employer was in violation of the Act.

[5]. No written representations were filed by the applicant and accordingly, by decision dated February 8, 2012 the Tribunal issued a decision indicating that, if no written representations were filed by February 22, 2012, the application would be dismissed.

[6]. On February 9, 2012 the applicant emailed to the Tribunal very brief written representations and copies of emails that failed to provide any clarity as to how the applicant asserted the Employer had violated the Act. By way of letter dated February 10, 2012, the Employer stated that the written representations filed by the applicant were unresponsive to the questions posed and were wholly unhelpful to clarify the application. The Employer requested that the application be dismissed for failing to state a claim against which the Employer could defend itself.

[7]. By decision dated February 13, 2012, the Tribunal advised the applicant that the application appeared to set out no facts that, if true, would establish a violation of the Act. The applicant was directed to file submissions as to why this application should not be dismissed on the basis that, even if the Tribunal found all of the fact he relies upon to be true, the Tribunal would not find a violation of the Pay Equity Act.

[8]. On February 14, 2012 the applicant filed with the Tribunal a four page letter, a list of 61 publications, a one page document entitled Risk Factor Modification Centre and a copy of his curriculum vitae. None of these documents clarify the nature of the applicant’s complaint or address the issue as to why the application ought not to be dismissed.

[9]. As stated at the outset of this decision, it would appear that the applicant is complaining that his employment with St. Michael’s Hospital was terminated because he exercised rights under the Act. However, the applicant has not provided particulars of a single instance where, prior to the termination of his employment, he exercised rights under the Pay Equity Act. In the absence of even a single particular in support of his assertion that he was exercising his rights under the Act, the applicant cannot succeed with this allegation. The applicant appears to further assert that his job class was Research Assistant I, a female job class, and that the value of his work was equal to that of the male job class of Research Scientist/Senior Scientist. He has provided absolutely no particulars that would support a finding that the job class of Research Assistant I is equal in value to that of Research Scientist/Senior Scientist. As such, the applicant cannot succeed with this allegation. Finally, it appears that the applicant may be suggesting that he was in the job class of Research Assistant I but performing the work of a Research Scientist/Senior Scientist. If this were the case, it may be that the applicant was incorrectly classified but it does not amount to a violation of the Pay Equity Act.

[10]. Accordingly, it is the Tribunal’s determination that even assuming all of the facts as stated in the application to be true, the application does not allege facts that would establish a violation of the Act. This application is hereby dismissed and the hearing of this matter scheduled for March 22, 2012 is hereby cancelled.

“Diane L. Gee”

Diane L. Gee, Chair