OPEHT 2016

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal asserting that the respondent employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employer failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had not complied with the Order and directed that unless the employer filed submissions by April 8, 2016, an order would be made in the form requested by the applicant.

The applicant employer filed an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order requiring it to adjust pay rates and pay out adjustments with interest within 30 days.

The employer argued it lacked the financial ability to pay within the timeframe and sought to pay over nine years without interest.

The Tribunal directed the employer to file submissions on why the application should not be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, noting that lack of funding is not a defense to an employer's obligation to comply with the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

After finding non-compliance in a previous decision and receiving no submissions from the employer, the Tribunal ordered the employer to take specific steps to achieve pay equity, including posting the order, evaluating job classes, calculating adjustments, and paying outstanding amounts with interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the Office's request to confirm the substantive decision, noting it lacked jurisdiction on a referral to do anything other than determine compliance.

The applicant, Community Living North Perth, filed applications challenging a Pay Equity Review Officer's orders directing it to make pay equity adjustments.

The applicant asserted that the Crown was the true employer of the employees in question.

The Crown raised a preliminary argument that section 1.1 of the Pay Equity Act precluded a finding that it was the employer.

The Tribunal found that the plain and ordinary meaning of section 1.1 clearly sets out the limited circumstances in which the Crown can be named an employer, none of which applied in this case.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to make orders against the Crown absent a finding that it was the employer.

The applications were dismissed.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging the Employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The Employer failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal concluded the Employer had not complied and directed that an order would be issued unless the Employer filed submissions by March 3, 2016.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal closed its files in two related matters involving the Ottawa Public Library Board and the Ottawa-Carleton Public Employees Union, Local 503, following correspondence from the union's counsel.

These applications concerned whether pay equity achieved through proxy pay equity plans in female-dominated long-term care workplaces must be maintained by continued reference to proxy establishments.

The Tribunal held that the Pay Equity Act imposes a maintenance obligation on proxy plans, but that maintenance does not require ongoing monitoring of changes in compensation or job value in the proxy employer’s establishment.

Instead, maintenance is to be carried out internally by monitoring the compensation/value relationship already established for the key and non-key female job classes.

The Tribunal also rejected the section 15 Charter challenge and held that workplace changes affecting job value made the existing $1.50 plans inappropriate absent a negotiated gender-neutral comparison system.

The matter was adjourned for nine months with directions to negotiate an amendment to the plans.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employer filed an application objecting to the Order, citing financial inability.

The Tribunal directed the Office to provide an unidentified employee, who was a party to the original complaint, with a copy of the employer's application and a blank Response form, outlining the employee's right to participate anonymously through an agent.

The Employer applied under the Pay Equity Act objecting to an Order of a Review Officer, challenging the Review Officer's jurisdiction.

The Pay Equity Office sought to intervene to address the jurisdictional question.

The Tribunal granted the Pay Equity Office intervenor status, limited to addressing the jurisdiction of the Review Officer.

The applicant applied to enforce a Review Officer's Order against the responding party.

The responding party failed to file a response within the directed 10-day period and instead sought an unspecified extension of time on the day before the deadline.

The Tribunal declined to grant the extension, noting that without a response, the responding party could not meet its onus to establish compliance with the Order.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be set down for an expedited hearing to determine the appropriate remedy for non-compliance.

The union requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal had proposed a process for dealing with the request, to which the union agreed and the employer did not object.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to produce records of pay equity payments made in 2006 and set a schedule for written submissions.