Other Tribunals - OPEHT

The parties previously agreed to adjourn the matter sine die to January 1, 2011.

As neither party requested that the matter be scheduled for a hearing, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a further period of one year, noting that it will be deemed terminated if no request for a hearing is made within that time.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal received an application to set aside a Review Officer's order regarding an amended pay equity plan, as well as numerous objections to the plan from other employees.

The Tribunal directed that all objections be combined into a single file and ordered the applicants to file formal applications within 15 days.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die.

The Tribunal ordered the matter adjourned for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The union requested a teleconference regarding the employer's alleged failure to communicate its progress in achieving pay equity, as ordered in a previous decision.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that the 90-day compliance period had not yet expired.

The union may renew its request if the employer fails to comply after the period expires.

The applicant, Norwood Nursing Home, applied to revoke a Review Officer's order under the Pay Equity Act.

The Pay Equity Office filed a motion seeking standing to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the Pay Equity Office standing to intervene, finding that its expertise concerning policy, factual, or legal issues would assist the Tribunal.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for a pre-hearing conference.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die for a period not exceeding six months.

The Tribunal ordered the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice if no party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant failed to file an Amended Application and a letter from its auditors as directed by a previous Tribunal decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the matter.

The applicant employer sought clarification on whether a schedule detailing employee names and amounts owing, as found by the Review Officer, should be included with the Order when distributed to existing and former employees.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal directed that the schedule must be included with the Order as per its previous direction.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party health care group.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act seeking to revoke or vary two orders issued by a Review Officer.

The Tribunal issued preliminary directions requiring the employer to post and mail notices of the application to current and former employees, and directing the Pay Equity Office to mail notices to a confidential employee.

The parties filed applications with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.

The applications were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant and the Pay Equity Office requested that a scheduled hearing be converted into a pre-hearing conference to deal with preliminary matters, and that the second hearing date be cancelled.

The Tribunal noted that a pre-hearing conference cannot make binding decisions.

Therefore, the Tribunal maintained the first hearing date before a full panel to decide the preliminary issues, and cancelled the second date.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to add a respondent who had delivered but not filed a response.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal under section 25(5) of the Pay Equity Act.

The employer filed a response challenging the merits of the Review Officer's Order.

Because the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of an Order on a section 25(5) referral, it deemed the employer's response to be an application under section 25(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the employer to post and mail notices to affected employees.

The Township of McGarry filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal under section 24(6) of the Pay Equity Act to revoke an Order issued by a Review Officer, asserting that no pay equity adjustments were owing to its employees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the non-union employees of the Township, informing them of their right to participate in the proceedings.

The notice outlined the steps and deadlines for employees to file a Response if they wished to be involved in the hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die during the hearing.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal consented to adjourn the hearing sine die for a period of three months, after which the matter will be deemed terminated unless a party requests to proceed.

The applicant, a Communication Supervisor, filed an application challenging a Review Officer's decision regarding the evaluation of her position under the Pay Equity Act.

She argued her position should have received at least as many points as the eliminated Emergency Response Officer position.

The employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the Act does not require new positions to be evaluated consistently with eliminated ones.

The Tribunal agreed with the employer's interpretation of the Act but allowed the applicant an opportunity to make further submissions before deciding whether to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The employer requested an extension of time to comply with a Review Officer's order, which the Tribunal had previously directed it to comply with in a final decision.

The Pay Equity Office opposed the request, noting the employer's history of delaying implementation.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider its final decision and refused to extend the time for compliance, warning the employer that failure to comply could result in enforcement proceedings in court.

The applicant employer filed an application with the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal challenging a Review Officer's order to make pay equity adjustments for three female job classes.

The employer claimed the job classes were over-evaluated by mistake but provided no substantiating information.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to amend its application to comply with Rule 12 of the Rules of Practice by pleading material facts and providing details of the alleged over-evaluation.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to identify and serve the amended application on all current and former incumbents of the affected positions, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant School Board objected to a Review Officer's order calculating the respondent's retroactive pay equity adjustment.

The Review Officer had awarded the maximum adjustment for each year of service, regardless of the respondent's actual salary or grid placement.

The Tribunal found that the School Board's approach of pro-rating the adjustment to maintain the proportional relationship among salary rates was permissible under the Pay Equity Act.

However, the Tribunal recalculated the amount owing based on the respondent's actual paid salary relative to the job rate, directing the School Board to pay the outstanding balance with interest.

The Union applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's decision that a negotiated change in the collective agreement did not contravene the Pay Equity Act.

The change increased the threshold for part-time employees to receive overtime pay, aligning it with full-time employees.

The Employer argued the Application should be dismissed without a hearing as no prima facie breach was pleaded.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the Union did not assert a benefit was lost by a female job class compared to a male job class comparator, but merely that part-time employees took home less pay.

The Application was dismissed.