Employment and Labour Law - OPEHT

The applicant failed to contact the Registrar to obtain a hearing date following a previous decision.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die until November 1, 2009, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party sought to proceed by that date.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act seeking to stay or set aside an order of a review officer regarding outstanding pay equity adjustments.

The employer argued that the union was estopped from claiming annual payments, that the complaint was vexatious, and that the delay in issuing the order violated section 11 of the Charter.

The union responded that the application failed to make out a prima facie case and noted approximately $12,000 in outstanding payments.

The Tribunal directed the employer to file submissions showing cause as to why the application should not be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant filed an application challenging a Review Officer's refusal to order the employer to implement a specific job evaluation scenario.

An affected party requested disclosure of the job evaluation documents.

The employer resisted, citing a previous privacy ruling.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to produce the documents, finding them relevant to the proceedings and noting its power to compel production supersedes privacy restrictions.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to amend her application to specify the alleged statutory contraventions.

The Tribunal reviewed the Respondent's Response and found it did not conform with Rules 2.02 and 2.03.

The Tribunal directed the Respondent to file and serve a proper Response by July 15, 2002, and directed the Applicant's representative to file a Reply by July 22, 2002.

The hearing scheduled for July 24, 2002, was marked peremptory.

The Applicant and the Employer requested an adjournment sine die because the Employer posted a pay equity plan and was engaging in discussions about its implementation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be dismissed after one year without further notice unless a hearing was requested.

The Applicant requested to withdraw its Application objecting to a Review Officer's Order.

The Respondent did not object to the withdrawal, though she expressed concerns about legal costs and enforcement options.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, noting that the Respondent or the Pay Equity Office could now seek to enforce the Review Officer's Order.

The Tribunal granted David Deluzio's request to withdraw the Response filed on behalf of an anonymous group of employees, having satisfied the directives from a previous decision.

The Tribunal directed the remaining respondent, Milan Podhorsky, to advise whether he adopts the positions in the withdrawn Response or to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal also issued directions to the applicant regarding a potential pre-hearing conference, continuing disclosure issues, and outstanding procedural matters.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) brought a motion for the early dismissal of two applications filed by the employer, GL&V Process Equipment Group Inc., which objected to a Review Officer's order regarding pay equity.

The PEO argued that the employer's applications should be dismissed due to delay and abuse of process, as they were filed after the deadline set by the Tribunal in a previous decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the PEO's motion, finding that the employer's delay was reasonably explained by the parties' ongoing negotiations to settle the outstanding issues, including the gender dominance of certain job classes.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's conduct did not amount to an abuse of the Tribunal's processes and noted that the PEO failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from the delay.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request, noting that the matter would be dismissed without further notice after one year unless a party requested it be rescheduled.

The Pay Equity Office applied for an order compelling the employer to comply with Review Officer orders.

The employer conceded non-compliance but had not filed an application objecting to the merits of the orders.

The Tribunal set a peremptory date for the compliance hearing and provided a final deadline for the employer to file an application objecting to the merits of the orders.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Pay Equity Act and subsequently sought arbitration under her collective agreement.

She applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal for an adjournment sine die of her complaint pending the arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for an adjournment and ordered the applicant to advise within 30 days whether she intends to withdraw the main application or proceed with the hearing.

The Employer applied to revoke a Review Officer's order requiring it to pay the female job class of registered nurses an additional $0.37 per hour.

The Tribunal upheld the Review Officer's finding that subsection 13(10) of the Pay Equity Act requires pay equity adjustments to be incorporated into the collective agreement rate, and that subsequent negotiated increases must be calculated on the adjusted rate.

The Tribunal also found that the Employer failed to maintain pay equity under subsection 7(1) by giving the male comparator job class a smaller wage increase than other non-union staff, which artificially held back the nurses' job rate.

The applicant City requested a hearing regarding a Review Officer's order directing the parties to complete and implement a pay equity plan.

The respondent union moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to dismiss an application without a hearing on the merits if the written material fails to disclose a case that the Tribunal can remedy.

Finding that the City's application merely expressed general dissatisfaction with the job comparison system without alleging facts that would constitute a violation of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to establish a prima facie case.

A Review Officer referred a pay equity matter to the Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, alleging that neither the Association nor the Board had complied with a previous order.

The Tribunal requested written submissions from the parties on how to proceed.

Neither party alleged non-compliance or wished to take carriage of the proceedings, indicating instead that they were still negotiating.

The Tribunal concluded it was not appropriate to proceed with the referral without a party willing to act as the applicant and present evidence, though the original order remained binding.

A Review Officer referred a matter to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under subsection 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, alleging that neither the Senior Officers' Association nor the Board of Commissioners of Police had complied with an order to compare female and male job classes.

As neither party had made an application to the Tribunal, the Tribunal requested written submissions on several procedural and substantive issues, including whether the Tribunal's Rules of Practice applied and whether the matter was properly before the Tribunal.

The parties in several cases requested an adjournment pending the Tribunal's determination in the Women's College Hospital case.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment but imposed a condition requiring the applicants to inform the Tribunal within 30 days of the release of the Women's College Hospital decision whether they intend to proceed.

One member dissented on the imposition of the 30-day deadline.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die pending a Court of Appeal decision in another matter.

The Tribunal proposed to terminate the application if not brought back within one year, and invited submissions.

The City and Library objected, arguing it interfered with their private agreement.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to manage its caseload and impose limits on adjournments.

The Tribunal imposed the one-year limit, noting the parties could amend their agreement or request an extension if the Court of Appeal decision was delayed.

The parties reached an agreement to adjourn the application sine die pending the release of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a related pay equity case.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the adjournment but noted the need to place a finite limit on such adjournments to manage its caseload.

The Tribunal ordered that unless the parties objected within 21 days, the matter would be adjourned sine die and terminated if neither party requested a hearing within one year.

The employers and bargaining agents disputed the number of job classes and pay equity plans required for elementary school teachers under the Pay Equity Act, 1987.

The employers argued that all elementary teachers constituted a single job class and that separate pay equity plans were required for male and female teachers.

The Tribunal held that elementary teachers are divided into seven distinct job classes based on their different educational qualifications and corresponding salary ranges.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that a single pay equity plan was appropriate for all elementary teachers, as they form a single bargaining unit represented jointly by their respective branch affiliates.

The Tribunal also permitted limited intervenor status to the secondary school teachers' federation to provide historical context on teacher compensation grids.

Peat Marwick requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision denying it intervenor status in a pay equity dispute between the Ontario Nurses' Association and Women's College Hospital.

The Tribunal held that its discretion to reconsider decisions under s. 30(2) of the Pay Equity Act should only be exercised in compelling and extraordinary circumstances to preserve the finality of decisions.

Finding no new evidence, change in circumstances, or error of law, the majority dismissed the request.

One member dissented, finding that the consolidation of multiple similar applications constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant reconsideration.