PEHT Case No: 1763-17-PE
Bonnie E. MacLeod, Irene Hutton, and Linda Gemmell, Applicants v Brockville General Hospital, and CUPE 5666, Respondents
BEFORE: Roslyn McGilvery, Vice-Chair, William Cook and Shannon McManus, Members
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: April 30, 2018
This is an application under the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, as amended (the "Act").
The applicants allege that their position of ER Clerk was not accurately evaluated pursuant to the relevant Pay Equity Plan (the "Plan") that Brockville General Hospital (the "Employer") and CUPE 5666 (the "Union") executed. The applicants seek an "accurate evaluation" of their job.
There appears to be no dispute that the Plan constitutes a deemed approved plan under the Act.
Although not explicit in their application, it is evident that the applicants are alleging that the Employer and Union have contravened section 5 of the Act, which provides:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the criterion to be applied in determining value of work shall be a composite of the skill, effort and responsibility normally required in the performance of the work and the conditions under which it is normally performed.
By decision dated January 25, 2018, the Tribunal (differently constituted) directed the parties to file submissions respecting the Employer's request that the Tribunal dismiss this application on a prima facie basis.
The applicants have filed submissions as directed. However, the Union has chosen not to do so.
The Tribunal will dismiss an application for failing to make out a prima facie case if, assuming all of the allegations set out in the application are true and provable, the alleged facts nonetheless do not constitute a violation of the Act (See Corporation of the City of Peterborough, 1991 CanLII 4448 (ON PEHT) (March 21, 1991)).
The Tribunal's Rules of Practice require an applicant to "provide a clear and concise statement of the facts and events upon which the Applicant relies." As drafted (including the submissions filed in response to the Tribunal's January 25, 2018 direction), the application is lacking in particulars regarding the circumstances surrounding the job evaluation that apparently took place. The applicants have for the most part provided conclusions rather than the underlying material facts and details. The applicants have not explained when the job evaluation took place, their understanding of the factors that were considered in the evaluation, the bases upon which they believe that the evaluation of their job fell short of the requirements under the Act. While they allege that certain duties were added to their job, they do not explain when these duties were added and why they are of the belief that these duties were not taken into account in their job evaluation or how these alleged new duties impact their job as a whole.
The applicants shall have an opportunity to particularize their allegations. They must deliver to the other parties and file with the Tribunal such particulars on or before May 14, 2018. If they fail to do so, this matter may be dismissed for failing to plead a prima facie case.
Dated at Toronto this 30th day of April, 2018.
"Roslyn McGilvery"
Roslyn McGilvery, Vice-Chair
"William Cook"
William Cook, Member
"Shannon McManus"
Shannon McManus, Member