Other Tribunals - OPEHT

The applicant requested to adjourn the proceeding indefinitely pending the Tribunal's direction on pay equity maintenance using proxy comparators in other files.

The union opposed the delay.

The Tribunal agreed with the union, dismissing the adjournment request, as there was no timeline for the other files.

Recognizing the broad implications of the issue, the Tribunal directed that a Notice to the Community be posted to allow interested persons or organizations to seek intervenor status to make submissions on the procedure for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

The applicant union requested leave to withdraw its application under the Pay Equity Act after the parties resolved the issues between them.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application withdrawn, cancelling all previously scheduled hearing and meeting dates.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

After two sine die adjournments to allow the parties to resolve disclosure issues, the issues remained unresolved.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed the Registrar to set a hearing date and ordered a schedule for the parties to file submissions regarding the outstanding disclosure.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dated December 17, 2018.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file its response to the Request for Reconsideration on or before June 3, 2019, in accordance with Rule 82 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, alleging ongoing bad faith bargaining by the respondent.

The Tribunal declined to determine whether to grant the extension in advance of seeing the actual request for reconsideration, noting it may also need the respondent's submissions on the matter.

The determination was deferred until the applicant files and delivers its request.

The applicants filed an application under the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal previously directed that any applicant who declined a settlement offer and wished to proceed to a hearing must file a written statement identifying the issues and witnesses by November 28, 2018.

No written statements were received by the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that none of the applicants wished to proceed and terminated the application, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant unions alleged that the responding nursing homes failed to maintain pay equity under the Pay Equity Act.

The applications had been adjourned sine die following a 2016 merits decision, which is currently the subject of judicial review applications scheduled for February 2019.

The workplace parties requested the matters be relisted for hearing.

The Tribunal declined the request, adjourning the applications pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings.

At a pre-hearing conference for an application under the Pay Equity Act, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die until September 20, 2019.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent, noting the application would terminate without further notice unless a request to proceed or further extend was made prior to that date.

The applicant filed applications objecting to orders made by a Review Officer under the Pay Equity Act following an audit by the Pay Equity Office.

The applicant failed to name the Pay Equity Office as a responding party and did not name any responding party for the non-union group application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to deliver copies of the applications to the Pay Equity Office and to post notices in the workplace for affected non-union employees before the applications would be processed further.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applicants' Pay Equity Act application on a prima facie basis.

The applicants alleged that the employer and union failed to consider certain admitting and switchboard duties added to their ER Clerk classification during job evaluation.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the applicants sufficiently pleaded that the evaluation system unreasonably excluded important job information related to the four statutory criteria under section 5 of the Act.

The Pay Equity Office sought to discontinue its referral under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act against the respondent.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the request and terminated the matter.

The applicants, ER Clerks, alleged that their position was not accurately evaluated under the Pay Equity Plan.

The employer requested that the application be dismissed on a prima facie basis.

The Tribunal found that the application lacked particulars regarding the job evaluation and the alleged new duties.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to provide a clear and concise statement of facts and events by a specified date, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted the request pursuant to section 4.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, adjourning the hearing sine die for a period of not more than nine months.

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

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act, asserting that the Employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The Employer did not file a response or provide submissions.

The Tribunal found that the Employer had not complied with the Order and directed the Employer to post the Tribunal's order, provide payroll data, evaluate job classes, and pay any outstanding pay equity adjustments and interest.

The respondent hospital sought to have the applicants' Pay Equity Act application dismissed on a prima facie basis, arguing the alleged facts did not constitute a violation of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to file written submissions addressing the preliminary issue, with the respondent permitted to reply, before referring the matter to a panel for review.

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

The employer did not file a response or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer had not complied with the Order and directed that an order would issue in the form requested by the Office unless the employer filed submissions by a specified date.

The parties in two related Pay Equity Act applications agreed on a proposal for the conduct of upcoming hearing dates following the late delivery of a large volume of documents by the applicant.

The Tribunal accepted the consent proposal, which provided for opening statements and the examination-in-chief of the applicant's first witness, followed by an adjournment to schedule further dates and address case management issues.

The parties requested on consent to extend the period of an adjournment sine die of a referral under section 24(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the adjournment to June 1, 2017, after which the application would be deemed abandoned if no request to proceed is received.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) and the respondent Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on the merits of their Pay Equity Act applications.

The adjournment was sought because the CCACs were soon to be replaced by Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) under the Patients First Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, cancelling the April 2017 hearing dates and directing the Registrar to schedule new dates in September 2017 to allow the LHINs to participate and explore settlement.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) brought applications under the Pay Equity Act disputing a Review Officer's finding that the respondent Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) were not required to negotiate pay equity maintenance with ONA.

ONA brought a motion arguing that the applications were rendered moot by the Patients First Act, 2016, which transfers CCAC operations and employees to Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) and deems the transfer a sale of business.

The Tribunal dismissed the mootness motion, finding that the transfer merely substitutes the LHINs for the CCACs as the employer and does not resolve the underlying dispute regarding ONA's right to negotiate.

The Tribunal also dismissed ONA's alternative motion for production of documents related to the employers' unilateral pay equity maintenance exercise, as ONA failed to demonstrate their arguable relevance to the issue of the right to negotiate.