Employment and Labour Law - OPEHT

The applicant and responding party employees requested the consolidation of two applications under the Pay Equity Act concerning the maintenance of pay equity in union and non-union plans.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be listed together and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the effectiveness of a joint Pre-Hearing Conference.

Three employees filed applications objecting to a pay equity plan ordered by a Review Officer.

The responding party raised an issue regarding the timeliness of two of the applications and requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Tribunal treated all three applications as timely, consolidated them for hearing, and granted the responding party's request for a short extension of time to file a single response.

The applicant employer brought a motion to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis, arguing that the Review Officer's findings and the responding employee's pleadings did not raise a prima facie violation of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal declined to dispose of the matter on a prima facie basis and directed that the matter proceed to a hearing on the merits.

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

The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the respondent's written submissions regarding the applicant's preliminary motion and granted the applicant until June 30, 2016, to file reply submissions.

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

The Tribunal noted that the applicant and the responding party employee had failed to file their written submissions on a preliminary motion with the Tribunal, having only exchanged them with each other.

The Tribunal directed the responding party to file her written submissions forthwith, failing which the preliminary matter would be determined based solely on the applicant's submissions.

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

In advance of the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal issued a procedural decision noting that the timeline for preliminary submissions had elapsed and directing the parties to finalize their Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to notify it of any outstanding document production issues by a specified date.

The responding parties requested an extension of the deadline for filing a response.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to June 20, 2016.

The decision was issued by a single panel member pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant filed an objection to an amended pay equity plan with the Pay Equity Office.

The Office advised it would not investigate and that the Tribunal must hold a hearing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a completed Application and Statement of Service by May 19, 2016, failing which her objection would be deemed abandoned.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal asserting that the respondent employer had not complied with a Review Officer's order.

The Office subsequently advised the Tribunal that the employer had complied.

The Tribunal terminated the application as moot.

The Pay Equity Office filed applications to enforce Review Officer orders against various Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) regarding the maintenance of pay equity.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) subsequently filed applications objecting to the Review Officer's conclusion that the CCACs were not required to negotiate with ONA respecting the steps to maintain pay equity.

ONA requested that the enforcement applications be held in abeyance pending the disposition of the objecting applications.

The Tribunal granted the request, relieving ONA and the CCACs from filing responses to the enforcement applications until directed otherwise.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the objecting applications but directed that they be listed together for any pre-hearing or hearing.

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

The Employer did not file a response or communicate with the Tribunal.

In the absence of a response, the Tribunal concluded that the Employer had not complied with the Order and directed that an order would be made against the Employer unless submissions were filed by a specified date.

At a pre-hearing conference for an application under the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal found that the applicant's pleadings did not clearly set out the facts relied upon to assert a contravention by the responding hospital.

The Tribunal directed the self-represented applicant to file written representations answering specific questions about his requests for a pay raise and his assertion that he should be paid at the Senior Scientist rate, and set a schedule for the hospital's response.

The applicant employer filed written submissions and an accountant's report arguing its calculations of pay equity liability satisfied the Pay Equity Act.

A responding employee disagreed, maintaining the Review Officer's Order should be upheld.

The Tribunal found it could not resolve the material dispute of fact regarding the calculations and the apparent lack of a proxy pay equity plan based solely on written submissions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a full oral hearing.

The Pay Equity Commission applied for enforcement of a Review Officer Order against the Employer.

The Employer had previously acknowledged non-compliance but failed to take corrective steps.

The Tribunal directed the Employer to file written submissions showing cause why it should not be found in non-compliance and ordered to pay the outstanding amount of $5268.35 plus interest.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board filed applications with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement.

The Tribunal noted that under subsection 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, settlements are binding and can be the subject of a complaint if not complied with.

The Tribunal closed its files.

The applicant union sought an order requiring the employer hospital to adjust the wage grids for female job classes in its clerical bargaining unit to mirror the wage grids for male comparator job classes in its service bargaining unit, including the rate of progression through the grid.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Pay Equity Act only requires adjustments to the 'job rate' (the highest rate of compensation available to a job class) to achieve pay equity.

The Act does not mandate the equalization of entire wage grids or rates of progression below the job rate, which remain matters for collective bargaining.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which they will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The Pay Equity Commission referred a matter to the Tribunal, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order directing it to take steps to achieve pay equity.

The employer failed to respond to the application, attend the pre-hearing conference, or provide submissions.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to meet its onus under the Pay Equity Act to demonstrate compliance, and confirmed the employer's non-compliance with the Order.

The applicant wrote to the Tribunal alleging that the pay equity plan posted by the respondents, pursuant to a previous Tribunal order, did not comply with the Pay Equity Act.

She requested a final decision in her favour.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that its previous decision was final and that any new allegations of non-compliance must be pursued by filing a fresh complaint with the Pay Equity Commission under section 22 of the Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction replacing a previous decision due to a typographical error.

Following a hearing for final arguments, the self-represented applicant was permitted to file written reply submissions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to ensure copies of her submissions were provided to the responding party's counsel, and noted that allegations regarding the conduct of the hearing would be addressed by the panel in due course.