Other Tribunals - OPEHT

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued procedural directions for three applications under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties agreed to a sole presiding officer and the hearing date was used to resolve procedural matters.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to file signed witness statements and all parties to file documents by July 22, 2022.

The Tribunal also set hearing dates for September 2022 and January 2023 to be conducted by video.

The applicant filed submissions setting out requested remedies in an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal directed that no response submissions were required and reminded the parties to file their materials in advance of the hearing in accordance with the Rules of Practice.

The applicants brought applications under the Pay Equity Act.

Following a previous direction to create job descriptions, the parties remained in dispute.

The Tribunal established a procedural timetable requiring the respondent to evaluate both versions of the job descriptions using its job evaluation tool, followed by the exchange of witness statements and the scheduling of hearing dates.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the applicant unions and responding nursing homes to file a status update regarding the establishment of their pay equity plans using a gender-neutral comparison system.

The parties were ordered to provide the update by November 2, 2021, detailing the steps taken since their last correspondence.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

After receiving a Registrar's Letter warning that the application would be deemed abandoned if the requested information was not provided within 10 days, the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned.

The respondent requested that the application under the Pay Equity Act be dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file any submissions regarding the request by July 21, 2021.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act electronically on April 21, 2021.

The Tribunal issued a procedural direction ordering the respondent to file its response by May 13, 2021.

The applicant requested to relist an application under the Pay Equity Act that had been adjourned sine die.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one, granted the request and ordered the respondent unions to file their responses by May 12, 2021.

The applicant purchased the assets of a motel business from the predecessor employer.

A Review Officer ordered the applicant and the predecessor to be jointly and severally liable for retroactive pay equity adjustments owed to the predecessor's former employees.

The applicant sought a variance of the order, arguing it was not a successor employer under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found that the sale of business provisions in Part II of the Act only apply to public sector employers or large private sector employers with 100 or more employees.

Since the motel was a small private sector employer, the successor obligations did not apply.

The Tribunal varied the order to remove the applicant's joint and several liability.

The parties advised the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal that they were continuing to meet with a view to achieving a resolution.

The Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die for a period of one year, noting that they would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within that time.

The employer appealed a Review Officer's Order concerning the termination of the respondent and the posting of a pay equity plan.

The parties resolved the issues personal to the respondent and requested a sine die adjournment.

The Tribunal granted a 6-month adjournment, rather than the standard 1-year period, to allow the employer time to consider the remaining issues regarding the pay equity plan while ensuring timely resolution.

The Tribunal also noted that notice to affected employees would be required if the matter proceeds.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary decision which found that the work performed by health care aides dispatched by the applicant was not casual work under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider the decision, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue its case without demonstrating an error of law or new evidence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the reconsideration request was premature, as the identity of the employer had not yet been determined.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal reviewed an application and found it did not plead a prima facie case or conform to Rule 12(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file an amended application by a peremptory date, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant, The Child's Place, requested an adjournment sine die of its application regarding a Review Officer's order to make pay equity adjustments.

The applicant advised it was in the process of implementing the order and intended to satisfy its pay equity obligations prior to its upcoming dissolution.

The Crown consented to the request, and no other parties responded.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment sine die, noting that the proceeding would be terminated if no party sought to bring the matter back on for hearing within one year.

The Tribunal convened a conference call to address a disagreement over document production and a request by the applicant and employer to adjourn the proceeding to continue settlement discussions.

An affected party opposed the adjournment because she was excluded from the discussions.

The Tribunal noted that if the applicant withdraws her application following a settlement, the Tribunal will not address generalized pay equity concerns, and the affected party would need to file her own complaint.

The Tribunal found the entire job evaluation manual arguably relevant for production but deferred the production order until January 7, 2003, to allow the principal parties time to finalize their settlement and potentially withdraw the application.

The applicant sought to enforce a Review Officer's pay equity order against Hull-Thomson Limited and Hull-Thomson Inc. At the hearing, Hull-Thomson Inc. brought a motion to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that it was a separate legal entity from Hull-Thomson Limited.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss and denied costs, with reasons to follow.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die.

As no employees filed a response, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die, noting it would be dismissed after one year if not scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day, citing newly discovered information that required time to consider whether to proceed with the application.

As no other party was participating and no one would be inconvenienced, the Tribunal granted the adjournment for 45 days, directing the applicant to advise whether it intended to proceed.

The applicants and the respondent advised the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal that the matters had been settled and requested an adjournment sine die.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent, adjourning the matters sine die and noting they would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing.

The parties sought preliminary rulings on whether the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal had jurisdiction to inquire into the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class and to hear evidence regarding the CAW-Canada Gender Neutral Comparison System.

The Tribunal held that the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class was not properly before it, as the employer was bound by its prior agreement on the issue during negotiations.

The Tribunal declined to rule prematurely on the admissibility of evidence regarding the comparison system.