OPEHT 2019

The applicants, Emergency Unit Clerks, filed an application alleging that their employer and union failed to reasonably evaluate their job class during a pay equity maintenance process, specifically regarding added overnight and switchboard duties.

The employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the added duties were captured in the job descriptions and that the applicants' concerns related more to workload and stress than the physical activity and dexterity subfactors they challenged.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to establish that the job evaluation plan unreasonably excluded important job information or violated the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant union filed an application challenging a 2013 Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer, alleging a denial of procedural fairness because it did not receive notice of the employer's application to review services.

The employer and the Pay Equity Office argued the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that conducting a hearing into the procedural fairness allegations would be premature, as the union could file a fresh complaint that the Pay Equity Act had not been complied with.

The Tribunal adjourned the application sine die to allow the union to file a fresh complaint.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) brought applications under the Pay Equity Act alleging that ten Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) were required to negotiate pay equity maintenance following a restructuring of the CCACs in 2007.

ONA argued that the restructuring constituted a sale of business and a change in circumstances under sections 13.1 and 14.1 of the Act, triggering a duty to bargain.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that while the Act requires employers to maintain pay equity, it does not impose a statutory obligation on employers to negotiate pay equity maintenance with a bargaining agent.

The Tribunal also rejected ONA's argument that a Charter values analysis required interpreting the Act to mandate such bargaining, concluding that the absence of a duty to bargain maintenance does not disproportionately limit freedom of association.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the respondents failed to achieve pay equity following a hospital amalgamation in 2000.

A Review Officer previously found no contravention, concluding the applicant lacked standing and the complaint was premature.

The respondent employer argued the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, while the respondent union disagreed.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a hearing to receive submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party union requested an extension of time to file its response because its counsel was on vacation.

The Tribunal granted the extension to August 14, 2019, noting that the delay was not unduly lengthy, and extended the deadline for both responding parties to that date.

The respondent requested that the matter be scheduled for a hearing following failed settlement discussions, and sought an order requiring the applicants to provide detailed particulars of their complaint.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a hearing but declined to order further particulars, finding the application sufficiently particularized based on prior correspondence.

The Tribunal noted the applicants should expect to present their evidence first at the hearing.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to August 6, 2019.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to post a copy of its decision and the amended application in the workplace to notify employees of their right to participate.

The applicant posted the amended application but referenced an incorrect decision date.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to immediately post the correct decision and extended the deadline for employees to file a response.

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

The respondent failed to file a response or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent had not complied and directed that an order would be made unless the respondent filed submissions by a specified date.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered the parties to resume negotiations for amended pay equity plans and, failing agreement, appointed a Review Officer to prepare the plans.

The applicant alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith post-decision, constituting a change in circumstances that warranted reconsidering the decision and imposing the applicant's proposed plans and retroactive adjustments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision had already anticipated the possibility of unsuccessful negotiations by providing the alternative remedy of a Review Officer.

The Tribunal declined to award compensatory damages or clarify the original decision.

The applicant employer filed an application under subsection 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act objecting to an Order from Review Services arising from a Pay Equity Office audit.

As the Order was not prompted by an employee complaint, the affected employees were not named as responding parties but are entitled by law to participate.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the applicant to post a copy of the decision and the amended application in the workplace to notify employees of their right to participate in the hearing.

The applicant requested an amendment to the timeframe for written submissions.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, ordering the parties to provide their submissions in chief by June 28, 2019, and reply submissions by July 8, 2019.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dated December 17, 2018.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file its response to the Request for Reconsideration on or before June 3, 2019, in accordance with Rule 82 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

Following the conclusion of the oral hearing regarding the maintenance of pay equity plans under the proxy methodology, the Divisional Court issued two decisions concerning Charter values and the Pay Equity Act.

As the parties had no opportunity to address these decisions during the hearing, the Tribunal issued a direction inviting the parties to make written submissions on the implications of the Divisional Court's decisions.

The Pay Equity Office sought to intervene in an application under the Pay Equity Act regarding a 2013 Notice of Decision.

The Tribunal granted leave to intervene on consent.

The Office and the responding School Board sought to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis.

The Tribunal directed that the preliminary motion be decided on written submissions and set a schedule for the applicant to respond and for the other parties to reply.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, alleging ongoing bad faith bargaining by the respondent.

The Tribunal declined to determine whether to grant the extension in advance of seeing the actual request for reconsideration, noting it may also need the respondent's submissions on the matter.

The determination was deferred until the applicant files and delivers its request.