Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal

File No.: 1675-11-PE Alexander Rogovik, Applicant v. St. Michael’s Hospital, Responding Party.

BEFORE: Diane L. Gee, Chair.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: February 13, 2012

[1]. This is an application under the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, as amended (“the Act”). Dr. Rogovik asserts that his employment with St. Michael’s Hospital was terminated because he exercised rights under the Act. Dr. Rogovik 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. Dr. Rogovik raises numerous other complaints in his application none of which fall under the jurisdiction of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).

[2]. Dr. Rogovik’s complaint indicates that the “comparison job of Research Technologist is incorrect for comparison in principle because I did not perform jobs of that profession and is not qualified.” Dr. Rogovik states that “Pay Equity is equal pay for work of equal value.” As a result of these and other comments contained in Dr. Rogovik’s application, it is apparent that Dr. Rogovik misconceives what pay equity is and how it works. Pay equity is not “equal pay for work of equal value” nor does it take into consideration the content of each individual’s job or qualifications. Pay equity does not require individuals to be capable of performing the duties of the job class that the job class they occupy is compared to for pay equity purposes. Pay equity is not concerned with individuals. Pay equity is only concerned with job classes and the value of those job classes (absent reference to specific individuals who occupy them) as compared to other job classes. Where a job class is found to be a female dominated job class the job class (not the people in the job class) is given a numerical value. The employer then looks for a male dominated job class with the same or lesser numerical value and determines whether the people in the female dominated job class that has the same or higher value as the male job class are being paid the same amount of money. There is absolutely no requirement that the people in the female dominated job class be able to perform the job of the male dominated job class selected as a comparator.

[3]. Having regard to the fact that many of the complaints advanced by Dr. Rogovik are based on an inaccurate understanding of what pay equity is, the Tribunal, by way of decision dated December 21, 2011, directed Dr. Rogovik to provide information that might arguably, support a complaint under the Act. Dr. Rogovik was directed to provide the following information:

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 Rogovik to be asserting that he should be paid the same rate as the Senior Scientist. What is the rationale for that position?

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

g) If Rogovik 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 Rogovik feels are pertinent to his assertion that the Act has been contravened and which are not raised by the preceding questions.

3. Essentially, the Tribunal was giving Dr. Rogovik an opportunity to provide particulars that might arguably support a claim that he had complained to his employer that he did not believe it was in compliance with the Pay Equity Act prior to his termination or that the female job class of Research Assistant should be compared to the male job class of Senior Scientist. These are the only two bases upon which Dr. Rogovik would have a complaint under the Pay Equity Act.

[4]. By way of email dated February 9, 2012, Dr. Rogovik responded as follows:

a) A pay raise from the hospital: several times, at least once in writing (response was a decrease in pay, provided)

b) Mostly with Vladimir Vuksan (see previous documents)

c) Rationale: a written response is in hospital emails from May 2010

d) They were linked to a requirement of pay equity (in terms of pay raise)

e) The rationale has been provided

f) I do not assert that all research assistants should be paid at the senior scientist rate

g) Hospital’s failure to do so contravened the act in what is called ‘executive assistance”

h) No

[5]. Dr. Rogovik has provided no particulars that would support an finding that he had complained to his employer, prior to his dismissal, that he did not believe the employer was in compliance with the Pay Equity Act. Dr. Rogovik certainly may have complained that he did not believe he was being paid properly or fairly but he has provided no particulars that suggest he ever complained specifically about the Pay Equity Act. Further, Dr. Rogovik suggests that only he, and not all Research Assistants, should be paid at the Senior Scientist rate. Pay equity requires job classes – not individuals – to be compared to job classes. Dr. Rogovik has provided no explanation as to why or how only he, and not all Research Assistants, would be compared with Senior Scientists if such were appropriate. The position argued by Dr. Rogovik is not one that is consistent with pay equity.

[6]. For the reasons set out above, this application appears to set out no facts that, if true, would establish a violation of the Pay Equity Act. Dr. Rogovik is hereby directed to deliver to St. Michael’s Hospital and file with the Tribunal, no later than February 29, 2012, his submissions as to why this application should not be dismissed on the basis that, even if the Tribunal found all of the facts he relies upon to be true, the Tribunal would not find a violation of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal hereby puts both parties on notice that submissions are not to be emailed to the Chair of the Tribunal. There are to be filed, as required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, by hand, regular mail, courier or facsimile transmission.

“Diane L. Gee”

Diane L. Gee, Chair