OPEHT 2015

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer.

The employer conceded non-compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay retroactive pay equity adjustments with interest, adjust job rates, publish notices in local newspapers for former employees, and post the decision in the workplace.

The union requested reconsideration and clarification of a prior Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision, alleging the employer failed to pay equity adjustments to certain job classes on the basis that they were not female job classes.

The union sought enforcement and requested the production of payroll records to confirm past pay equity payments.

The Tribunal found the requested payroll information arguably relevant and proposed that the matter proceed by way of document production followed by written submissions.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consult on a timeline for this process or file written objections if they opposed proceeding in this manner.

The Pay Equity Office applied for enforcement of a Review Officer's order against Norwood Nursing Home Limited.

The application had been adjourned sine die before a response was filed.

The Pay Equity Office requested the matter proceed.

The Tribunal ordered the responding party to file its response within 10 working days, failing which the Tribunal would conclude that the order had not been complied with.

The applicant requested the imposition of a 60-day period for the implementation of the Tribunal's August 31, 2015 decision granting its pay equity application.

Following correspondence from the respondent's counsel, the Tribunal directed that the applicant may renew its request in writing after January 15, 2016, with the respondent having five business days to respond.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that the respondent did not intend to implement a previous final decision issued on August 31, 2015.

The applicant requested an order requiring implementation within 60 days or an expedited hearing.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file written submissions regarding the applicant's requests by December 8, 2015.

The applicant requested an extension of time for the respondent union to file and deliver its response.

The Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and extended the deadline to November 23, 2015.

A media reporter requested access to the application, responses, affidavits, factums, and notices in a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal matter.

The Tribunal noted that no responses, affidavits, or factums were filed, and no hearing or mediation was scheduled.

However, written submissions were filed by the respondents.

The Tribunal directed that if any party objected to the reporter accessing the application and written submissions, they must file their objections by November 10, 2015.

In the absence of objections, the request would be granted.

A media reporter requested access to the application, responses, affidavits, factums, and notices in this matter.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that any party objecting to the request must file written submissions by November 10, 2015, failing which the request would be granted.

The responding party trade union requested a three-week extension of time to file its response in order to speak to counsel.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to grant the full extension absent consent from the applicant's counsel, but granted a shorter extension of one week, noting the parties could agree to a further extension on consent.

The applicant confirmed it wished to proceed with its applications under the Pay Equity Act after previously being directed to consider withdrawal.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, set a schedule for the parties and the Crown to deliver and file their submissions on the preliminary issue.

The applicant sought to withdraw its applications challenging Review Officer orders regarding pay equity adjustments.

The respondent union objected, arguing prejudice to employees.

The applicant then requested an extension to reconsider its withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted the applicant until October 21, 2015 to indicate whether it wishes to withdraw, and directed other parties to refrain from filing submissions on a preliminary issue regarding the Crown's status as employer until further notice.

The applicant employer sought to revoke a Review Officer's order which found its non-union proxy pay equity plan non-compliant with the Pay Equity Act.

The employer argued that a 14-year delay between the posting of the plan and the issuance of the order, stemming from an anonymous complaint, caused substantial and irreparable prejudice amounting to an abuse of process.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal agreed, finding the unexplained delay prejudiced the employer's ability to mitigate liability and brought the pay equity system into disrepute.

The Tribunal rescinded the Review Officer's order.

The applicant sought to identify the Crown in Right of Ontario as the employer of the employees affected by a Review Officer's pay equity orders.

The Crown responded that it was not the employer and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions on the preliminary issue of the impact of section 1.1(1) of the Pay Equity Act and O.Reg. 387/07 on the applications.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act regarding a pay equity plan for non-union employees.

The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to serve notice of the application on all former non-union employees eligible for pay equity adjustments.

The applicant notified four individuals but failed to confirm if there were other eligible former employees.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm compliance by September 18, 2015, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant, Community Living North Perth, filed an application under the Pay Equity Act regarding an order applying to a pay equity plan for non-union employees.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to serve notice of the application to former non-union employees eligible for pay equity adjustments.

The applicant advised it had hand-delivered the documentation to four named individuals.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm in writing whether these four individuals constituted all eligible former employees, and if not, to serve any remaining individuals and provide their names to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a procedural direction regarding a request for reconsideration filed by the union.

After the union requested the reconsideration hearing be held in Ottawa rather than Toronto, the Alternate Chair directed the Registrar to schedule a teleconference to consult with counsel on whether the merits of the reconsideration could be heard via teleconference to save time and costs.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction regarding the status of the Pay Equity Office as a respondent in two applications.

The Office had been named as a respondent but wrote to the Tribunal suggesting it was not a proper party based on prior jurisprudence.

The Tribunal clarified its expectation that any named respondent who believes they are improperly named must formally request removal.

The Tribunal directed that unless advised otherwise by a specified date, the style of cause would be amended to remove the Office as a respondent, leaving the applicants as the sole parties.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent City failed to maintain pay equity when it applied a market adjustment wage increase to a male job class (Residential Mechanical Inspector) without adjusting the proportional value wage line.

The City argued the job class was no longer a 'representative male job class' due to the market adjustment necessitated by recruitment difficulties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (majority) held that the City violated its duty to maintain pay equity under s. 7(1) of the Pay Equity Act, as the Act does not permit a representative male job class to become unrepresentative post-achievement without a statutory exemption.

The Tribunal ordered the City to review the wage line and pay retroactive adjustments.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application, finding the market-adjusted rate anomalous and not reflective of gender discrimination.

The Ottawa-Carleton Public Employees' Union (CUPE) Local 503 requested a reconsideration.

After reviewing the response from the Ottawa Public Library, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined that the matter should be set down for a hearing.

The Registrar was directed to schedule a one-day hearing in Toronto.

The applicants objected to the orders of a Review Officer made following a pay equity compliance audit, arguing the directions could not be complied with and the Review Officer lacked authority.

As the applications were unopposed, the Tribunal referred the matters to the Registrar to be listed together for a one-day hearing and permitted the applicants to tender evidence by affidavit.