OPEHT 2018

The applicant union filed complaints alleging the respondent school board failed to negotiate an amended pay equity plan in good faith and failed to maintain pay equity after the male comparator job classes were eliminated.

The Tribunal found that the parties' conduct demonstrated a shared view that the original pay equity plans were no longer appropriate due to changed circumstances.

The Tribunal concluded the school board violated its duty to bargain in good faith by raising inauthentic process concerns late in the joint job evaluation process to avoid the financial costs of pay equity adjustments.

The parties were ordered to resume negotiations based on the joint committee's ratings.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed that any applicant who declined a settlement offer and wished to proceed to a hearing must file a written statement identifying the issues and witnesses by November 28, 2018.

No written statements were received by the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that none of the applicants wished to proceed and terminated the application, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant union appealed a Review Officer's Order that directed the parties to complete a new pay equity agreement.

Following the union's certification, the parties had entered into a Letter of Understanding to review the existing 1990 pay equity plan.

They reached an impasse on the method of comparison and the determination of job rates.

The Tribunal found that the Letter of Understanding went beyond the strict requirements of the Pay Equity Act, which only required splitting the existing plan upon certification.

Because the parties were not statutorily required to negotiate a new plan, the Tribunal revoked the Review Officer's Order and declared the employer's unilaterally posted amended plan invalid.

The applicant unions alleged that the responding nursing homes failed to maintain pay equity under the Pay Equity Act.

The applications had been adjourned sine die following a 2016 merits decision, which is currently the subject of judicial review applications scheduled for February 2019.

The workplace parties requested the matters be relisted for hearing.

The Tribunal declined the request, adjourning the applications pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions in an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent employer intended to submit a conditional settlement offer to all applicants.

The Tribunal directed that any applicant who declines the settlement offer must file a written statement identifying the issues to be decided and the witnesses to be called, and warned that failure to appear at the scheduled hearing would result in dismissal of their application.

At a pre-hearing conference for an application under the Pay Equity Act, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die until September 20, 2019.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent, noting the application would terminate without further notice unless a request to proceed or further extend was made prior to that date.

The applicant filed applications objecting to orders made by a Review Officer under the Pay Equity Act following an audit by the Pay Equity Office.

The applicant failed to name the Pay Equity Office as a responding party and did not name any responding party for the non-union group application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to deliver copies of the applications to the Pay Equity Office and to post notices in the workplace for affected non-union employees before the applications would be processed further.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants failed to provide the respondent hospital with their submissions.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to serve the submissions forthwith and reminded them of their obligation to copy all parties on correspondence filed with the Tribunal.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applicants' Pay Equity Act application on a prima facie basis.

The applicants alleged that the employer and union failed to consider certain admitting and switchboard duties added to their ER Clerk classification during job evaluation.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the applicants sufficiently pleaded that the evaluation system unreasonably excluded important job information related to the four statutory criteria under section 5 of the Act.

The applicant unions alleged that the responding nursing homes failed to maintain pay equity under their proxy plans.

In a prior decision, the Tribunal directed the parties to negotiate an amendment to their plans and adjourned the matter sine die.

The parties reached an impasse and requested the Tribunal to adjudicate the substantive issues.

The Tribunal held that it lacks originating jurisdiction over the substantive provisions of a proxy plan, which must first be addressed through the statutory Review Services process.

Given the pending judicial review applications and the lack of a Review Officer's order, the Tribunal indicated its intention to terminate the proceedings.

The Pay Equity Office sought to discontinue its referral under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act against the respondent.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and terminated the matter.

The applicants, ER Clerks, alleged that their position was not accurately evaluated under the Pay Equity Plan.

The employer requested that the application be dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The Tribunal found that the application lacked particulars regarding the job evaluation and the alleged new duties.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to provide a clear and concise statement of facts and events by a specified date, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging an Order issued by a Review Officer requiring the production of payroll records.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a preliminary decision scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Review Officer had the legal authority to make the Order.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to advise whether it would pursue its argument that it need not comply with the request for information on the basis of privacy, and set deadlines for the filing of legal authorities.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, adjourning the hearing sine die for a period of not more than nine months.

If no party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed abandoned.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, asserting that the Employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The Employer did not file a response or provide submissions.

The Tribunal found that the Employer had not complied with the Order and directed the Employer to post the Tribunal's order, provide payroll data, evaluate job classes, and pay any outstanding pay equity adjustments and interest.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Office subsequently advised the Tribunal that it did not wish to proceed with the referral.

The Tribunal treated the referral as withdrawn and closed the file.

The respondent hospital sought to have the applicants' Pay Equity Act application dismissed on a prima facie basis, arguing the alleged facts did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file written submissions addressing the preliminary issue, with the respondent permitted to reply, before referring the matter to a panel for review.

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

The employer did not file a response or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had not complied with the Order and directed that an order would issue in the form requested by the Office unless the employer filed submissions by a specified date.