Employment and Labour Law - OPEHT

The applicant sought review of a 2017 Order regarding its obligation to maintain pay equity and use a proxy methodology from 2005 to 2011.

The Tribunal noted that it had recently decided identical issues in a related file.

Exercising its discretion under section 25(2)(d) of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal varied the temporal scope of the Review Officers' orders to apply from 2005 to March 1, 2011, but otherwise left the orders in effect.

The applicant employer sought review of a Review Officer's order requiring it to demonstrate pay equity maintenance back to 2005.

The employer purchased the facilities out of receivership in 2011 and argued it was impossible to comply for the pre-2011 period due to a lack of records.

The majority of the Tribunal found that the significant delay, combined with the employer's lack of involvement prior to 2011 and the unavailability of records, prejudiced the employer's right to a fair hearing.

The Tribunal varied the temporal scope of the order to commence on March 1, 2011.

One member dissented, arguing the employer should be required to demonstrate maintenance back to 2005.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed status updates from the parties regarding the establishment of amended pay equity plans using a gender-neutral comparison system.

Finding that little progress had been made since its January 2020 direction, the Tribunal noted that the internal steps of building the plans must be completed before a 'maintenance by proxy' method can be implemented.

The Tribunal directed the parties to recommence their work forthwith and file a status update by March 31, 2022.

The applicants filed an application challenging a Review Officer's finding that no pay equity adjustments were owing.

At the hearing, after the applicants presented their evidence regarding their job evaluations, the respondent brought a non-suit motion arguing the evidence did not establish a violation of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding the applicants merely disagreed with their job class ratings and failed to show that the employer ignored statutory criteria or unreasonably excluded important job information.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter for enforcement of a Review Officer's Order against Norwood Nursing Home Limited.

The Office subsequently advised it would not proceed with the referral.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal terminated the matter.

The applicant requested an adjournment of its application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die until March 31, 2018, noting that it would be deemed abandoned if no party requested to proceed by that date.

The respondent hospital requested an extension of time to file its response to a pay equity application due to scheduling conflicts.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted a partial extension, extending the deadline to January 3, 2018, rather than the requested date of January 15, 2018.

The applicant filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of a Review Officer to order the production of payroll records under the Pay Equity Act.

The Alternate Chair of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, directing the Registrar to provide the Pay Equity Office with the application materials and ordering the Pay Equity Office to file and serve its response within ten days.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act but failed to file a Statement of Service as required by Rule 28 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file the completed Statement of Service by December 6, 2017, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural decision regarding the composition of the panel for an ongoing hearing.

Due to the unavailability of the full three-person panel for the remaining scheduled dates, the parties consented under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to continue and conclude the hearing before the Deputy Presiding Officer sitting alone.

In an application under the Pay Equity Act, three individuals indicated their wish to join the existing applicants.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ordered that the individuals be added as applicants to the title of proceeding, provided the respondent does not file a written objection prior to the scheduled pre-hearing conference.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order for enforcement under section 24.5 of the Pay Equity Act.

At a pre-hearing conference, the responding employer undertook to complete the required steps by a specified date.

The Tribunal incorporated this undertaking into a direction and adjourned the matter sine die, to terminate without further notice unless the Office requests to proceed.

The applicants brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

One of the applicants sought clarification regarding the document exchange requirements in the Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal relieved against the strict timeline in Rule 57 and extended the deadline for exchanging document lists.

The Tribunal also addressed the status of four other non-union individuals not named in the application, directing the applicant to provide them with the file materials so they could request to join the proceeding if they wished.

The Pay Equity Office referred an order to the Tribunal after the employer failed to comply.

The Tribunal previously directed the employer to pay the monetary adjustments owed to affected employees.

The employer subsequently sent a letter seeking to appeal the order and extend the time for payment, effectively requesting a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant reconsideration, as the employer had been provided ample opportunity to respond but ignored the matter.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act due to the employer's non-compliance with a previous order.

The Tribunal had previously found the employer in non-compliance and provided an opportunity to make submissions.

The employer failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay the pay equity adjustments and accrued interest within 30 days.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging various violations by the employer regarding its proxy pay equity plan.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the allegations did not disclose a prima facie violation of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory answer to the employer's objections and that the allegations, including complaints about the selection of key female job classes and the failure to object to the plan within the statutory timeframe, did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The Tribunal declined to inquire into these allegations and directed the remaining issues to a pre-hearing conference.

The applicant, Teranet Inc., advised the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal that it would not be proceeding with its application under the Pay Equity Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the matter and closed the file.

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 failed to file a response by the deadline.

In the absence of a response, the Tribunal concluded the Employer had not complied and indicated it would issue an order in the form requested by the Office unless the Employer filed submissions by a specified date.

The applicants brought an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging a Review Officer's decision that the employer had not contravened the Act.

The employer argued that several of the applicants' allegations failed to disclose a prima facie violation of the Act and should be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal reviewed the pleadings and found that several allegations, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the Act or result in a meaningful remedy.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to provide written submissions explaining why those specific pleadings should not be dismissed.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act due to the employer's failure to comply with a previous order.

After the employer failed to file submissions as directed, the Tribunal ordered the employer to post the decision, provide payroll and job data, evaluate job classes, calculate pay equity adjustments, and pay outstanding adjustments with interest within specified timelines.

The Office's request to confirm the Review Officer's order was dismissed, as the Tribunal's jurisdiction on a referral is limited to determining compliance.