Marc Bertrand v. York Catholic District School Board, 2013 CanLII 70433

0641-13-PE Marc Bertrand (on behalf of a group of employees identified on Schedule "A" and anonymous employee(s)), Applicant v. York Catholic District School Board, Respondent.

BEFORE: Mary Anne McKellar, Acting Chair.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: September 25, 2013

Background

1These are applications under the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7 as amended.

2The applications arise out of a Review Officer’s order that dealt with objections made by the members of several job classes in the employ of the responding party School Board to its posted non-union pay equity plan, and in particular to the underlying evaluations of those jobs that resulted in their placement in particular salary bands. The order issued on April 8, 2013, and the applicant in Tribunal File No. 0641-13-PE asserts that the School Board posted it on April 22, 2013.

3Tribunal File No. 0641-13-PE was filed with the Tribunal on May 22, 2013 and relates to the evaluation of one job class addressed by the Review Officer – the Behaviour Resource Workers (“BRWs”). It has already been the subject of a Pre-Hearing Conference and the parties have exchanged submissions on certain preliminary matters. No decision has issued with respect to those matters.

4Tribunal File No. 1794-13-PE was filed with the Tribunal on September 19, 2013 and relates to the evaluation of another of the job classes addressed by the Review Officer – the Psychological Associates (“PAs”).

5Additionally, earlier in September 2013 the Tribunal received another application apparently objecting to the Review Officer’s order, but it had not been served on the School Board as the applicant wished to remain anonymous. The Tribunal advised the applicant by letter that the application would not be processed unless it was served on the School Board and directed the applicant’s attention to the Tribunal Rules that require applicants wishing to remain anonymous to appoint agents to act on their behalf.

6The Review Officer’s order addressed the evaluation of Speech Language Pathologists (“SLPs”) and Occupational Therapists (“OTs”) and Physical Therapists (“PTs”), but to date no application has been filed with the Tribunal pertaining to those job classes.

Procedural Directions

7I am issuing the directions below pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act:

a) If the members of the SLP or OT/PT job class intend to file an application to the Tribunal with respect to the Review Officer’s order, they must do so by no later than October 18, 2013, or they will be deemed to have abandoned any right to do so;

b) The School Board is relieved of the obligation to respond to the merits of the application in Tribunal File No. 1794-13-PE or of any applications filed with the Tribunal by the SLP or OT/PTs until such time as the Tribunal may direct it to do so;

c) The School Board is not relieved of the obligation to identify as soon as possible after October 18, 2013, any preliminary objections it has to the Tribunal dealing with the application relating to the PAs or to any application(s) filed by the SLPs or the OT/PTs, one of which I anticipate will relate to the timeliness of the application(s);

d) The PAs and any new applicant(s) to the Tribunal shall have 10 working days after receipt of any objections the School Board makes to their application(s) in which to file submissions answering those objections, and the School Board shall have a further 5 working days in which to file reply submissions;

e) The School Board is directed to deliver a copy of this decision to members of the SLP and the OT/PT job class by September 30, 2013.

8The Tribunal will defer dealing with the preliminary matters that have been the subject of the submissions exchanged in Tribunal File No. 0641-13-PE until after it has received all of the submissions directed to be exchanged pursuant to this decision.