Other Tribunals - OPEHT

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order.

After finding non-compliance in a previous decision and receiving no submissions from the employer, the Tribunal ordered the employer to take specific steps to achieve pay equity, including posting the order, evaluating job classes, calculating adjustments, and paying outstanding amounts with interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the Office's request to confirm the substantive decision, noting it lacked jurisdiction on a referral to do anything other than determine compliance.

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

The Employer failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal concluded the Employer had not complied and directed that an order would be issued unless the Employer filed submissions by March 3, 2016.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 23 and 27, 2015, due to their counsel's sudden medical condition requiring immediate bed rest.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that the medical emergency constituted extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment for the February 23 hearing date and reserved its decision regarding the February 27 date pending a review of submitted hearing materials.

The employer and the union signed a pay equity plan in 2006 that tied the wages of female-dominated library job classes to male-dominated job classes in a separate municipal bargaining unit.

Subsequent interest arbitration awards for the municipal unit created a wage gap between the library employees and their comparators.

The employer argued that the pay equity plan capped retroactive adjustments and that any wage gap was permitted under the 'bargaining strength' exception in subsection 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the pay equity plan did not cap adjustments and that the employer failed to prove the wage gap resulted from differences in bargaining strength.

The employer was ordered to pay the corresponding percentage wage increases to the female job classes.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act relating to an Order of a Review Officer.

Following a previous decision, the Pay Equity Office indicated it did not object to the file being disposed of, though it noted it was not a proper respondent.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request and ordered the file closed.

The applicant commenced an application under the Pay Equity Act in June 2012.

After cancelling scheduled hearing dates on consent, the parties failed to seek to proceed with the matter in 2014 and did not respond to the Registrar's request for a status update.

The Tribunal terminated the application.

The applicant applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal to set aside a portion of a Review Officer's Order that required it to provide a copy of the Order to approximately 4,000 former employees.

The applicant argued that the former employees were unaffected by the substantive compliance steps and that it lacked current addresses for many of them.

Noting that the Pay Equity Office had neither sought to enforce the notice requirement nor responded to the application, the Tribunal varied the Order to dispense with the requirement, subject to any written objection filed by the Office.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal provided directions on how to implement its previous pay equity decision regarding Communication Operators and their male comparators, Mechanical Technicians.

The Tribunal directed that the hourly wage rate for Communication Operators be calculated by dividing the comparator's annual salary by 2080 hours, and their annual salary be determined by multiplying that hourly rate by 2184 hours.

The resulting annual salary is to be paid in equal instalments using the employer's 'pay smoothing' practice.

The Acting Chair of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural decision regarding three applications made by non-union employees of the respondent school board under the Pay Equity Act.

The decision clarified that a previous decision issued on September 25, 2013, was intended to apply to multiple files, and directed that copies of that previous decision be provided to all parties.

The union filed an application under the Pay Equity Act to enforce a settlement, arguing that pay equity adjustments should have been added to wage rates prior to the application of general wage percentage increases from the collective agreement.

The Tribunal found that the settlement was clear and unambiguous, and did not dictate the complex calculation method proposed by the union.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had appropriately implemented the terms of the settlement by paying the adjustments as an aggregate sum, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act but failed to serve it on the responding party.

The Registrar directed the applicant to serve the application and file a Statement of Service within 10 days, failing which the file would be closed.

The applicant did not comply with the direction.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to close the file.

The applicant, Farm Fresh Poultry Co-Op Inc., withdrew its application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal and closed the file.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement pursuant to section 25.1 of the Pay Equity Act, resolving all issues in dispute.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal closed the file, terminated the proceeding, and cancelled previously set hearing dates.

The applicant requested a further extension of time for the posting of notices described in a previous Tribunal decision.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the extension until September 30, 2013.

The applicant, Farm Fresh Poultry Co-Op Inc., filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to post and mail a Notice of Application to Employees and to confirm compliance in writing.

Having received no confirmation, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise in writing by August 8, 2013, whether it complied with the directions, failing which the application would be automatically terminated.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to post a Notice of Application to Employees, the Review Officer's Order, and the Application in prominent workplace locations.

The applicant was also directed to mail the Notice to former employees who worked in a female-dominated job class after January 1, 1994.

The Tribunal ordered that failure to comply with these directions by the specified deadline would result in the automatic termination of the matter.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

If no party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

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

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the applicant to post a Notice of Application to Employees in the workplace and mail it to former employees who worked in a female-dominated job class after January 1, 2000.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling the continuation of a pre-hearing conference for June 17 and August 21, 2013, and cancelling a previously scheduled hearing for April 10, 2013.

The Pay Equity Commission brought an application against Inn 2 Stay Inc. operating as Holiday Inn Express, Toronto Airport Area.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.