Employment and Labour Law - OPEHT

The employer appealed a Review Officer's Order concerning the termination of the respondent and the posting of a pay equity plan.

The parties resolved the issues personal to the respondent and requested a sine die adjournment.

The Tribunal granted a 6-month adjournment, rather than the standard 1-year period, to allow the employer time to consider the remaining issues regarding the pay equity plan while ensuring timely resolution.

The Tribunal also noted that notice to affected employees would be required if the matter proceeds.

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

The order required the posting of a pay equity plan, adjustment of job rates, and retroactive payments.

Neither the employer nor the union responded to the referral.

The Tribunal found that the order had not been complied with and ordered the employer and union to comply.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed an application and found it did not plead a prima facie case or conform to Rule 12(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file an amended application by a peremptory date, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a conference call to address a disagreement over document production and a request by the applicant and employer to adjourn the proceeding to continue settlement discussions.

An affected party opposed the adjournment because she was excluded from the discussions.

The Tribunal noted that if the applicant withdraws her application following a settlement, the Tribunal will not address generalized pay equity concerns, and the affected party would need to file her own complaint.

The Tribunal found the entire job evaluation manual arguably relevant for production but deferred the production order until January 7, 2003, to allow the principal parties time to finalize their settlement and potentially withdraw the application.

The applicant sought to enforce a Review Officer's pay equity order against Hull-Thomson Limited and Hull-Thomson Inc. At the hearing, Hull-Thomson Inc. brought a motion to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that it was a separate legal entity from Hull-Thomson Limited.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss and denied costs, with reasons to follow.

The applicant requested that a key witness be permitted to provide evidence by affidavit rather than viva voce testimony due to her age, heart condition, and stress.

The Pay Equity Hearing Tribunal denied the request, noting that proceedings are adversarial and require cross-examination to test assertions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide specific medical evidence if it wished to renew the request, and outlined potential alternative methods for adducing the evidence, such as video conferencing or written interrogatories.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die.

As no employees filed a response, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die, noting it would be dismissed after one year if not scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day, citing newly discovered information that required time to consider whether to proceed with the application.

As no other party was participating and no one would be inconvenienced, the Tribunal granted the adjournment for 45 days, directing the applicant to advise whether it intended to proceed.

The moving parties requested that the Tribunal reconsider its final decision, asking first for a determination on a preliminary issue regarding an amendment to the Appendix to the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act, while reserving the right to make further submissions on other errors of law.

The Tribunal declined to proceed in a bifurcated manner and directed the moving parties to deliver a revised request for reconsideration specifying all bases on which reconsideration is sought at one time.

Following the incapacity of a tribunal member, a newly constituted panel of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal determined how the hearing should proceed.

The Tribunal ordered that the oral submissions on a pending jurisdictional issue be remade, noting the limited time and expense involved, the new member's need to hear the arguments, and the broad importance of the jurisdictional issue to the Pay Equity Office's mandate.

The parties brought cross-motions for disclosure in a pay equity dispute.

The employee sought disclosure of job history, wage rates, and hours worked for specific positions.

The Tribunal granted this request, finding the documents arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The employer sought disclosure of Pay Equity Office files for the utilities industry under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to assess consistency.

The Tribunal dismissed this motion, ruling it lacked jurisdiction under that Act and that the materials were irrelevant to the de novo hearing.

The employer's request for an interpretative order regarding 'Representative Male Job Class' was also dismissed as premature.

The parties in two related pay equity applications reached a settlement and requested that the Tribunal issue a consent order varying a Review Officer Order, while withdrawing their respective applications.

The Tribunal declined to issue the requested consent order, noting that it lacked sufficient evidence to answer pertinent questions about the agreed terms.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that under section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, written settlements are binding and enforceable without the need for a consent order.

The applicant employees sought to enforce a Review Officer's Order directing the respondent employer to revise and post a pay equity plan and make retroactive payouts.

The employer sought to vary the Order, arguing that the higher job rate paid to a male comparator (Programmer Analyst) was justified under the 'skills shortage' exception in s. 8(1)(e) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to establish that it had encountered difficulties in recruiting employees with the requisite skills, as it relied only on general market trends rather than its own specific recruitment experiences.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's Order, post the pay equity plan, and mail copies to former employees.

The issue of interest on outstanding payments was deferred pending further submissions.

The applicants and the respondent advised the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal that the matters had been settled and requested an adjournment sine die.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent, adjourning the matters sine die and noting they would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing.

The applicant groups of employees and the respondent Crown reached a settlement regarding pay equity complaints.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the proceedings.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die on consent, noting they would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing.

The parties sought preliminary rulings on whether the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal had jurisdiction to inquire into the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class and to hear evidence regarding the CAW-Canada Gender Neutral Comparison System.

The Tribunal held that the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class was not properly before it, as the employer was bound by its prior agreement on the issue during negotiations.

The Tribunal declined to rule prematurely on the admissibility of evidence regarding the comparison system.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues in cross-applications regarding whether the Salvation Army or its individual facilities is the 'employer' for pay equity purposes.

The Tribunal ruled it had jurisdiction to determine the employer issue for all facilities across the province, not just those named in the Review Officer's Order.

To protect employee anonymity under s. 32(4) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal declined to order the disclosure of specific worksites but required an affidavit confirming the applicants' employment status.

The Tribunal also set the relevant time period for evidence up to December 31, 1993, and confirmed the standing of the employees' counsel to address the employer issue for all facilities.

The Employer objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it failed to maintain pay equity for female job classes represented by CUPE 1734.

The Employer argued that wage disparities were due to differences in bargaining strength under s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that s. 8(2) cannot be relied upon because pay equity had not yet been achieved for all employees in the establishment, specifically the teachers.

The Tribunal also found that CUPE 1734 was not complicit in the Employer's contravention, as the union had attempted to negotiate maintenance and subsequently filed a complaint.

The Employer's application was dismissed and the Order confirmed, except for the requirement that the union post a notice.

A group of individual teachers sought standing to participate in Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal proceedings regarding a pay equity plan negotiated between their employer and their bargaining agent.

The Tribunal dismissed their application and denied them intervenor status, finding that the Pay Equity Act does not provide individual employees represented by a bargaining agent with a statutory role in the preparation of a pay equity plan.

Furthermore, the teachers did not have a direct legal interest that would entitle them to party status at law, as the proceedings would not threaten the existence of their employment contracts or reduce their actual remuneration.

The parties reached an agreement prior to an oral hearing regarding pay equity job class evaluations and requested the Tribunal to vary a Review Officer's Order on consent.

The Tribunal refused the request, noting the parties provided no basis for the amendment and the requested variation went beyond the scope of the issues originally before the Review Officer.

The applications were adjourned sine die.