Employment and Labour Law - OPEHT

The Applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding an Order of a Review Officer.

The Tribunal previously directed the Applicant to file further submissions to establish a prima facie case regarding the gender incumbency of the Educational Assistant job class and its request that the Ministry of Community and Social Services fund its pay equity liabilities.

The Applicant failed to file further submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for failing to plead a prima facie case and confirmed the Review Officer's Order.

The Applicant, a former Records Clerk, challenged a Review Officer's Order regarding the pay equity plan negotiated between her union and the Employer.

She alleged her position was not appropriately evaluated and was matched with the wrong male comparator.

The Respondents brought a motion to dismiss the Application on the basis that the Applicant lacked status.

The Tribunal found that the pay equity plan was negotiated, executed, and posted by the Employer and the union, making it a 'deemed approved' plan binding on the Applicant.

Because the Applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the plan contravened the minimum standards of Part I of the Pay Equity Act, the Tribunal declined to inquire into the merits and dismissed the Application.

Costs were not awarded.

The applicant employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to review an Order of a Review Officer.

The Review Officer had declined to interfere with a 1992 deemed approved pay equity plan that designated the Educational Assistant job class as gender neutral.

The applicant also challenged its designation as a public sector employer required to use the proxy method of comparison.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case that the 1992 gender incumbency determination was unreasonable, noting that changes in gender incumbency over time do not render the initial determination unreasonable.

The Tribunal also confirmed that the applicant is a public sector employer because it operates a children's residence under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further submissions before formally dismissing the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal regarding the employer's failure to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employer admitted non-compliance but cited funding constraints and requested a stay pending discussions between its association and the government.

The Tribunal declined to grant a stay, noting the Pay Equity Office did not consent and there were no active settlement discussions.

Finding that the employer failed to meet its onus to prove compliance, the Tribunal ordered the employer to comply with the Review Officer's Order.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging that the respondent employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to pay out pay equity adjustments.

The respondent admitted non-compliance but argued it lacked the ability to pay due to a lack of government funding and challenged its inclusion in the broader public sector.

The Tribunal noted the respondent had previously raised and withdrawn these same arguments, found no basis to grant the requested relief, and indicated it would order compliance unless the respondent provided a foundation for a hearing by a specified date.

The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) applied to object to a Review Officer's Order, arguing that the Pay Equity Act did not apply to it because it is a federal undertaking.

The Tribunal first ruled that the Pay Equity Office did not have standing to participate as a party, as it lacked a direct and substantial interest in the constitutional applicability of the Act.

Based on an agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal then determined that the ONTC is a federal undertaking, rendering the Pay Equity Act inapplicable to it.

The Review Officer's Order was rescinded.

The Applicant, a private per diem operator of children's residences, applied to rescind a Review Officer's Order declaring it a 'seeking employer' under the Pay Equity Act.

The Applicant argued it was a private sector employer.

The Tribunal found that because the Applicant operates its residences under licences issued under the Child and Family Services Act, it falls squarely within the definition of a public sector employer in the Schedule to the Pay Equity Act.

The application was dismissed and the Order confirmed.

The applicant employer objected to a Review Officer's order, arguing that the Pay Equity Act does not apply to its operations because they are subject to federal legislative authority.

The Tribunal noted that this constitutional issue was not canvassed at Review Services, raising a question about whether the Tribunal could hear the matter before the Review Services process was exhausted.

The Tribunal issued directions requiring the parties and the Pay Equity Office to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the preliminary constitutional issue.

The employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments.

The employer sought to strike the order and requested the Tribunal inquire into the Review Officer's conduct.

The Tribunal struck the pleadings relating to the Review Officer's conduct, reiterating that its hearings are de novo and it does not inquire into the process or conduct of Review Services.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to assist the parties in setting deadlines for calculating and paying the adjustments.

The applicant employer sought to quash a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments, arguing it lacked the ability to pay and should not be considered a public sector employer.

The Tribunal noted that the employer admitted it was licensed under the Child and Family Services Act, which statutorily defines it as a public sector employer for pay equity purposes.

Furthermore, established Tribunal jurisprudence holds that inability to pay is not a defense to pay equity obligations.

Finding that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case for the requested remedies, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions before making a final decision on dismissing the application.

The Brampton Public Library Board brought a motion requesting the Tribunal's consent under section 31 of the Pay Equity Act to compel a Review Officer to testify.

The Board argued that the Review Officer's testimony was necessary to establish a defence of 'officially induced error' regarding its failure to maintain pay equity.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Review Officer's order was directed solely to the question of maintenance, not the proxy comparison method agreement.

The Tribunal concluded that the extraordinary circumstances required to pierce the confidentiality of the Review Services process were absent.

The employers applied to the Tribunal alleging a change in the identity of the employers under the Pay Equity Act.

The employers argued that the Tribunal should determine who the employer is at different points in time due to changed circumstances, even though no pay equity plan had been posted.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into changed circumstances absent an existing pay equity plan.

The existence of a plan is a precondition to examining whether changed circumstances render the plan no longer appropriate.

Thomson Newspapers objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it to be the employer for the purposes of pay equity of employees at the Oshawa Times.

The Tribunal reviewed the relationship between the two entities and concluded that, while the publisher of the Oshawa Times controlled the operation of the newspaper, he did so as an employee of Thomson.

As such he was obliged to carry out Thomson's corporate goals and objectives.

Overriding financial control rested with Thomson as did ultimate authority for compensation practices.

The Tribunal affirmed the Review Officer's order and found Thomson to be the employer.

The employer applied for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision regarding the pay equity bargaining process and comparison of job classes.

The employer argued that the comparison system should not have been amended, that materials not before the Tribunal were considered, and that there was no evidence to support conclusions about the rating committee's ability to assess jobs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the original decision was consistent with established jurisprudence on job content accuracy, that the parties had full opportunity to make submissions, and that there was adequate evidentiary support for the findings.

The Tribunal concluded the employer failed to meet the test for reconsideration.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's Order.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement on an amended pay equity plan and jointly requested that the Tribunal revoke the Order.

The Tribunal declined to issue the consent order, noting that the Memorandum of Settlement did not disclose the basis for certain conclusions regarding job rates, gender predominance, and comparability of job classes.

The Tribunal requested that the parties provide specific information in writing or schedule a hearing day before it would consider revoking the Order.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied to the Tribunal requesting an order that the Brant County Health Unit direct more than one percent of its annual payroll towards pay equity adjustments to accelerate the closing of a large wage gap.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that under section 13 of the Pay Equity Act, it has no discretion to order an employer to spend more than one percent of its payroll per year on pay equity adjustments, except in specific circumstances not present in this case.

The Tribunal directed the employer to post the amended pay equity plan and make adjustments in accordance with the statutory framework.

The applicant employer brought a preliminary motion alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the unexplained resignation of an employer representative in another case suggested a lack of adjudicative independence at the Tribunal.

The majority of the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were too attenuated and remote to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Tribunal's history demonstrated independent decision-making.

The dissenting member would have found a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the institutional setting and the lack of explanation for the member's resignation.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) requested that its pay equity applications against various hospitals be listed for hearing following the release of a related decision.

The respondent hospitals requested that the applications be adjourned sine die to allow for further negotiations on a gender-neutral comparison system.

The Tribunal denied the hospitals' adjournment request, finding no compelling reason to prevent ONA from proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered that the hospitals' cross-applications be listed for hearing alongside ONA's applications and directed the parties to complete their pleadings.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging that the SKEW job evaluation system proposed by the respondent hospitals was not gender neutral and failed to accurately capture and value nursing work.

The Tribunal found that the SKEW system's job fact sheet and valuing tool did not meet the standard of gender neutrality required by the Pay Equity Act, as they failed to make visible and appropriately value the complex skills, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions inherent in nursing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to negotiate and design a new gender neutral comparison system tailored to accurately capture the job content of the nursing and male comparator job classes in the hospitals.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision and sought remedies for the Employer's failure to comply with an order to negotiate a pay equity plan.

The Employer admitted non-compliance, citing financial constraints.

The Tribunal varied its original order, finding that the Employer's failure to bargain made the previous remedy inappropriate.

The Tribunal directed a review officer to prepare the pay equity plan, starting with the Union's proposed comparison system.

The Tribunal also ordered the Employer to pay compensatory damages, including the costs of pre-testing the system and the review officer's costs in preparing the plan, but declined to state a case for contempt or award legal costs.

One member dissented on the extent of the compensatory damages.