Employment and Labour Law - OPEHT

The applicant requested a further extension of time to file its application because the mediation process had not yet concluded.

The Tribunal granted the extension to December 31, 2011.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal decide the application based on written submissions exchanged with one respondent, pursuant to a pre-hearing conference memorandum.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that four additional respondents had subsequently intervened and were not bound by the memorandum.

The Tribunal directed all parties to attend the scheduled hearing prepared to lead evidence and proceed with the application in its entirety, as there was no agreement on facts or procedure among all parties.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal but failed to file a copy of the Notice of Decision or a completed Statement of Service as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file the required documents within 7 days, failing which the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice.

The Union requested that the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal proceed with resolving outstanding issues despite proposing mediation to the employer.

The employer opposed the request, arguing the parties had agreed to mediate.

Given the time the applications had been outstanding, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing to determine whether the EPP Operator job class is gender neutral.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application against the responding parties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

At a pre-hearing consultation, the parties resolved the issues and entered into a settlement under section 25.1 of the Act.

Having regard to the settlement, the Tribunal terminated the application.

The responding party requested an extension of time for the applicants to file their application, as the parties had retained a mediator to assist in resolving the dispute.

The Tribunal granted the extension to November 30, 2011.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 25(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The responding party, Touchstone Youth Centre, challenged the merits of the underlying Order.

Because the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of an Order on a section 25(5) referral, it deemed the response to be an application under section 25(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal issued directions for posting and mailing notices to affected employees.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the non-union employees of Touchstone Youth Centre.

The employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act seeking to revoke an Order issued by a Review Officer, asserting that no pay equity adjustments are owed.

The Tribunal directed the employer to post the notice and advised employees of their right to participate by filing a Response by October 18, 2011.

The applicant and responding party agreed to an extension of time for the responding party to file its response.

The Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to September 28, 2011, on consent.

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

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension to September 9, 2011, and noted that the applicant's reply must be filed within five days of being served with the response pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, Regional Nursing Services, requested to withdraw its application.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal acknowledged the correspondence from the applicant's counsel and ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicant union brought a motion for the production of confidential reports made to the City's Board of Control and Council regarding pay equity.

The City resisted production, arguing the reports were protected by Wigmore privilege because they were dealt with in-camera.

The Tribunal ordered production, finding that the City failed to establish the fourth precondition of the Wigmore test, as the potential injury to future confidential communications did not outweigh the benefit to the administration of justice in correctly disposing of the litigation.

The employer filed an application under the Pay Equity Act seeking to set aside orders made by a Review Officer.

The Tribunal previously directed the employer to give notice to affected employees, affording them an opportunity to respond.

Four employees filed responses, but only two delivered them to the other parties.

The Tribunal enclosed all responses with its decision and directed any party wishing to file a Reply to do so by September 1, 2011.

The parties were engaged in discussions and did not wish to proceed with the matter at the time.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of six months, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party requested a hearing within that time.

The applicant requested a 60-day extension to comply with the Tribunal's previous order dated July 15, 2011, citing practical difficulties.

The Tribunal granted the request and extended the compliance deadline to October 17, 2011.

The Township of McGarry brought an application objecting to a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity.

The application was unopposed after the complaining employee resolved her issues and withdrew.

Based on affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found that the Township had not failed to maintain pay equity prior to April 28, 2008, and that the values assigned to job classes by the joint job evaluation committee were reasonable.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded, rendering the Pay Equity Office's compliance application moot.

The employers brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union was estopped from advancing the argument that proxy pay equity plans applied to retirement home employees, relying on a 2004 Letter of Understanding.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Letter of Understanding merely suspended the union's pursuit of pay equity adjustments pending the final legal outcome of a related case, and did not restrict the legal arguments the union could subsequently raise.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file its application.

The Tribunal had previously directed the co-applicant to advise if she objected to the extension.

As no submissions were received, the Tribunal granted the extension of time to September 30, 2011.