Employment and Labour Law - OPEHT

The applicant, a non-profit youth centre, sought a variance of a Review Officer's order requiring it to immediately pay retroactive pay equity adjustments to current and former employees.

The applicant argued that immediate compliance would force it to cease operations due to severe financial hardship.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had allowed the liability to accumulate over 15 years and that lack of funding is not a valid defense to an employer's obligations under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant was ordered to fully comply within 30 days.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal alleging unpaid wages, unpaid vacation pay, failure to provide a T4, and workplace hostility under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal summarily dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine complaints under the Employment Standards Act, as its jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters under the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing consultation before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The applicant had been previously warned that failure to attend would result in the dismissal of the application.

As the applicant did not appear or contact the Tribunal, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for exercising rights under the Pay Equity Act, and that his female job class was equal in value to a male job class.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written representations detailing the facts supporting his allegations.

The applicant failed to provide particulars of any instance where he exercised rights under the Act prior to termination, or any facts supporting the equal value of the job classes.

The Tribunal dismissed the application without a hearing on the basis that, even assuming all stated facts to be true, the application did not allege facts that would establish a violation of the Act.

The applicant filed an application under section 23(3) of the Pay Equity Act.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and resolved the matter.

Consequently, the applicant withdrew her application, and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act alleging he was terminated for exercising his rights under the Act and that his job class of Research Assistant I should be compared to the male job class of Research Scientist/Senior Scientist.

The Tribunal found that the applicant misunderstood the nature of pay equity, which compares job classes rather than individuals.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions as to why his application should not be dismissed for failing to set out facts that would establish a violation of the Act.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the matter pending the outcome of a related file (PEHT File No. 1507-11-PE).

The responding party consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent.

The applicant employer sought to vary a Review Officer's Order requiring it to pay outstanding pay equity retroactivity amounts within 90 days, arguing it lacked the financial resources to pay immediately.

The Tribunal referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing and adjourned a related file pending the outcome.

The applicant, Ontario Nurses' Association, requested to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act against the Municipality of Chatham Kent.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application challenging a Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Commission but failed to file a copy of the decision or a Statement of Service.

The Tribunal initially dismissed the application.

However, after the Commission provided the Tribunal with a copy of the Notice of Decision, the Tribunal revoked its dismissal.

The Tribunal directed that a copy of the application be sent to the responding party and ordered the responding party to file any response within 10 days.

The applicant filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file a copy of the Notice of Decision issued by a Review Officer of the Pay Equity Office.

The applicant filed documents relating to proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, but no Notice of Decision from the Pay Equity Office.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that an application can only be filed with the Tribunal if a complaint was first filed with the Pay Equity Commission and a decision was issued.

Counsel for Touchstone Youth Centre requested an adjournment of a scheduled Pre-Hearing Conference, having obtained consent from the majority of the other parties.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment request and directed the Registrar to reschedule the conference.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act regarding a Review Officer's failure to make an order against the employer concerning job evaluation and the male wage line.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application without further inquiry, arguing it failed to state a prima facie case.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the applicant's factual assertions, if assumed true, could reasonably result in relief under the Act.

The matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act objecting to a Review Officer's Order.

At a pre-hearing conference, the applicant indicated it would seek an adjournment but failed to file any correspondence.

As no response was filed and the applicant failed to communicate further, the Tribunal adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no party sought to proceed by June 30, 2010.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application as an abuse of process.

The underlying application attempted to re-litigate the gender predominance of a single-incumbent position, which had already been determined in an earlier proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case using submissions he had the opportunity to make prior to the dismissal.

The applicant requested that an upcoming hearing be converted into a further pre-hearing conference to address outstanding preliminary matters.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined the request, determining that the preliminary issues could be dealt with by the hearing panel at the outset of the scheduled hearing.

The applicant union sought to recover retroactive pay equity adjustments on behalf of its members from their former employer.

Because the union could not determine the exact amounts owed to individual employees, it requested that the Tribunal summons the employer's principal to attend a hearing with the necessary documents.

The Tribunal directed the union to obtain a signed summons from the Registrar, complete it, and serve it personally on the principal in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Applicant opposed the Tribunal's decision to deal with two preliminary issues by written hearing, arguing that the issues were jurisdictional and required an oral hearing under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal held that the issues—whether the respondents were employees when they filed their complaint and the order of proceedings—were procedural in nature.

Finding no good reason to hold an oral hearing, the Tribunal directed that the preliminary issues be dealt with by written submissions.

The Applicant brought an application concerning a Review Officer's Order regarding pay equity for the Pool Deck Supervisor job class.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to pursue a settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be terminated if not brought back for a hearing within one year.

Ford Motor Company of Canada applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to revoke a Review Officer's Order requiring it to amend its pay equity plan due to alleged changed circumstances at its Windsor establishment.

The Tribunal found that Ford failed to establish a prima facie case that its restructuring did not affect the pay equity plan.

However, the Tribunal also found the Review Officer's Order too vague to confirm, revoke, or vary.

The application was dismissed.