Pay Equity Office v. Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa
PEHT Case No: 2512-15-PE
Pay Equity Office, Applicant v Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa, Respondent
PEHT Case No: 2605-15-PE
Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa (SASC), Applicant v Pay Equity Office, Respondent
BEFORE: Mary Anne McKellar, Chair
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: December 9, 2016
Introduction
These are applications in respect of a Review Officer’s Order (“the Order”) issued under the Pay Equity Act, 1995 (“the Act”).
Section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits this decision to be made by a one-person panel.
The Order directed the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Ottawa (“the Employer”) to take a number of steps to determine and pay out pay equity adjustments to its employees.
Case No. 2512-15-PE is a referral by the Pay Equity Office under section 24(5) of the Act for enforcement of the Order. That application was held in abeyance when the Employer filed an application in Case No. 2605-15-PE objecting to the Order.
Case No. 2605-15-PE
Another panel of the Tribunal dismissed this application on a preliminary basis, except insofar as it related to whether one individual employee (Susan Havart) had relinquished any entitlement to a pay equity adjustment by executing a release in favour of the Employer. My August 24, 2016 decision made the following directions in respect of this file:
With respect to Case No. 2605-15-PE, I make the following directions:
a) the Employer shall prepare brief written submissions (including a copy of the release that it relies on) setting out why it says Ms. Havart is not entitled to any pay equity payment, and deliver them to her at her last known address and file them with the Tribunal on or before September 9, 2016.
b) The Employer shall also provide the Registrar of the Tribunal with Ms. Havart’s address information for our records.
c) Ms. Havart shall then have 10 working days in which to deliver to the Employer and file with the Tribunal any written submissions in opposition to those of the Employer.
d) If Ms. Havart does not file any submissions, the Tribunal will presume that she agrees that she is not entitled to any monies pursuant to the Order, and that the Order should be varied
Counsel for the Employer complied with the directions to it by letter dated September 8, 2016.
Ms. Havart did not file any written submissions in opposition to the Employer’s position. In accordance with my August 24, 2006 decision, therefore, she is presumed to agree that she is not entitled to a pay equity adjustment, and that the Order should be varied accordingly.
The Employer’s application in Case No. 2605-15-PE is therefore allowed in part, and the Order varied to delete Ms. Havart from the Schedule A list to employees to whom adjustments are owing.
Case No. 2512-15-PE
In my August 24, 2016 decision, I noted that the Employer had taken some steps to make pay equity payments, which made it inappropriate to simply direct compliance with the Order. I invited the parties to advise the Tribunal as to how they wished to proceed. Pursuant to that invitation, the matter was adjourned sine die on their agreement until December 1, 2016.
By letter dated November 30, 2016, counsel for the Pay Equity Office requested that the matter be adjourned sine die for a further 30 days to permit certain resolutions to be finalized, however she also requested that it proceed in part.
As counsel has made her request prior to December 1, 2016, this matter is not deemed to have been abandoned.
The request to adjourn in part and proceed in part is somewhat unusual, and I believe warrants a conference call with counsel. They are directed to consult with one another and advise the Registrar on or before December 16, 2016 of their preferred time for a conference call of 30-60 minutes duration with me on December 20, 2016.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 9 day of December, 2016.
"Mary Anne McKellar" Mary Anne McKellar, Chair