3829-10-PE Civic Association of Non-Union Employees at the City of Windsor and Laurie Parent, Applicants v. The Corporation of the City of Windsor, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Diane L. Gee, Chair.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: December 12, 2012
By way of decision dated December 5, 2012, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) advised the parties that this application had been withdrawn. By way of letter dated December 6, 2012 the responding party has requested confirmation that the Pay Equity Plan posted January 19, 2011 is considered deemed approved.
The Pay Equity Plan posted by the responding party on January 19, 2011 was posted as a result of an Order of a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Commission dated November 8, 2010 pursuant to section 16(2) of the Pay Equity Act (the “Act”). The Pay Equity Plan posted on January 19, 2011 has been referred to in earlier decisions and in the Officer’s Order as the “2005 Plan” and accordingly I will continue to refer to it in that manner in this decision.
On or about February 9, 2011 Sandra Taziker filed an application with the Tribunal pursuant to section 24(6) of the Act in which she sought to have the Order set aside in so far as it related to the position of Manager of Compliance & Enforcement – Mobile Unit. Such was the only application filed with the Tribunal pursuant to section 24(6) in respect of the 2005 Plan. In addition, a number of employees filed objections to the amended 2005 Plan with the Pay Equity Office of the Pay Equity Commission pursuant to section 16(4) of the Act. Section 17 of the Act provides that, where the Commission receives a notice of objection under section 16(4), it is the Tribunal, and not the Commission, that is to settle the pay equity plan. Accordingly, the Tribunal asked the Commission to forward to the Tribunal all objections it received to the 2005 Plan. The Commission did so. The Tribunal then combined all objections it received from the Commission with Ms. Taziker’s application into one file that was assigned PEHT File Number 3829-10-PE.
As indicated in the Tribunal’s December 5, 2012 decision, all of the applicants subsequently withdrew their applications in which they either objected to the Officer’s Order or objected to the 2005 Plan. As a result of such withdrawals the Tribunal closed its file without having altered the Officer’s Order or the 2005 Plan posted as a result of the Officer’s Order in any way.
In the circumstances, the issue as to whether or not the 2005 Plan has been deemed approved is not an issue that is before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to answer the question posed by the responding party. The Tribunal can merely direct the responding party’s attention to sections 16 and 17 of the Act.
“Diane L. Gee”
Diane L. Gee, Chair