OPEHT 2015

The applicant requested an extension of time to comply with a previous Tribunal direction to file and deliver a proposed pay equity plan.

The Tribunal granted the extension and adjusted the deadlines for the responding party employees' response submissions and the applicant's reply submissions.

The applicant employer sought to present a motion for orders facilitating the preparation and posting of a pay equity plan, or alternatively revoking a Review Officer's order.

Due to the sudden unavailability of the applicant's counsel, the oral hearing was adjourned.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the applicant to provide a copy of the proposed pay equity plan to the respondent employees and the Tribunal, and set a schedule for the respondents to file written submissions regarding the applicant's motion record and the proposed plan, followed by a scheduled hearing date.

The applicant employer sought to stay the enforcement of a Review Officer's Order requiring pay equity adjustments, arguing it lacked the financial means to comply due to insufficient provincial funding.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis and to deny standing to numerous "interested parties" named by the applicant.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the interested parties did not have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome and declined to grant them intervener status.

The Tribunal also granted the union's motion to dismiss the application, reaffirming that lack of funding is not a defense to an employer's statutory obligation to comply with a pay equity plan or the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order to the Tribunal for enforcement, and the employer brought an application objecting to the same Order.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the employer's application.

As the employer conceded non-compliance and the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of the Order on a reference, the Tribunal invited the employer and the union to make written submissions on why the remedies sought by the Pay Equity Office should not be granted.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its counsel experienced a sudden medical condition requiring immediate bed rest.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that it would be unreasonable to expect another lawyer in the firm's small employment and labour section to take carriage of the matter on such short notice.

The applicants brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the parties undertook to keep the Tribunal apprised of the status of the matter but failed to do so.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of one month, after which it would be deemed abandoned unless a party sought to proceed.

The applicant sought a variance of a Review Officer's Order directing it to pay pay equity adjustments to 767 individuals.

The applicant argued that individuals who could not be located, who had settled, or who had not responded should be removed from the Order's schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the Order and had effectively done so.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no compelling purpose to vary or revoke the Order and terminated the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die as the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, adjourning the matter for 30 days, after which it would be considered abandoned if no party requested it to proceed.

The scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 23 and 27, 2015, due to their counsel's sudden medical condition requiring immediate bed rest.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the medical emergency constituted extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment for the February 23 hearing date and reserved its decision regarding the February 27 date pending a review of submitted hearing materials.

The employer and the union signed a pay equity plan in 2006 that tied the wages of female-dominated library job classes to male-dominated job classes in a separate municipal bargaining unit.

Subsequent interest arbitration awards for the municipal unit created a wage gap between the library employees and their comparators.

The employer argued that the pay equity plan capped retroactive adjustments and that any wage gap was permitted under the 'bargaining strength' exception in subsection 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the pay equity plan did not cap adjustments and that the employer failed to prove the wage gap resulted from differences in bargaining strength.

The employer was ordered to pay the corresponding percentage wage increases to the female job classes.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal reconsider its decision terminating the application for delay.

The request was made on consent of all parties.

The Tribunal found that while the request did not satisfy the usual considerations for reconsideration, the fact that it was made on consent warranted rescinding the termination.

The Tribunal set a new deadline for the parties to request a hearing and identify the issues to be adjudicated.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act relating to an Order of a Review Officer.

Following a previous decision, the Pay Equity Office indicated it did not object to the file being disposed of, though it noted it was not a proper respondent.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request and ordered the file closed.

The applicant commenced an application under the Pay Equity Act in June 2012.

After cancelling scheduled hearing dates on consent, the parties failed to seek to proceed with the matter in 2014 and did not respond to the Registrar's request for a status update.

The Tribunal terminated the application.

The applicant applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a portion of a Review Officer's Order that required it to provide a copy of the Order to approximately 4,000 former employees.

The applicant argued that the former employees were unaffected by the substantive compliance steps and that it lacked current addresses for many of them.

Noting that the Pay Equity Office had neither sought to enforce the notice requirement nor responded to the application, the Tribunal varied the Order to dispense with the requirement, subject to any written objection filed by the Office.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions regarding an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order and a related referral for enforcement.

The enforcement referral was held in abeyance pending the disposition of the objection application.

The respondent union sought to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis and to deny intervenor status to identified interested parties.

The Tribunal set a schedule for written submissions on these preliminary matters.