Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal, asserting that the respondent employers failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employers failed to file a response to the referral despite being served.

The Tribunal concluded that the employers had not complied with the Order and directed them to file submissions by a specified date explaining why they should not be ordered to comply.

The applicant requested an extension of time to provide written submissions in response to submissions delivered by Stephen Huff.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, sitting as a panel of one under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granted the applicant an extension until July 20, 2015.

The union requested clarification and reconsideration of a previous Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal order requiring the employer to pay wage increases to female job classes, alleging the employer failed to pay certain classes it unilaterally reclassified as male or gender-neutral.

The union also sought a finding that the employer violated the order and requested a penalty.

The Tribunal treated the correspondence as an application for reconsideration and directed the employer to file a response within ten days, noting the matter would likely be decided without an oral hearing.

The Pay Equity Office (PEO) sought enforcement of an order against the employer, while the employer brought a separate application challenging the order on the basis that it employed fewer than ten employees and was exempt from the Pay Equity Act.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal directed the employer to post a notice of its application in the workplace and confirm compliance.

The employer failed to confirm posting.

Consequently, the Tribunal terminated the employer's application.

As the employer never claimed to have complied with the PEO's order, the Tribunal gave the employer a final deadline to provide written submissions as to why the PEO's requested enforcement remedies should not be granted.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a procedural direction regarding a potential dispute over the delivery of written submissions by the respondent's representative.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise by July 13, 2015, if it took issue with the delivery of the submissions or the respondent's right to rely on them at the hearing.

The applicant employer filed an application under the Pay Equity Act challenging a Review Officer's Order regarding its non-union female job classes from 1996 to 2004.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide notice of the application to affected employees, including posting materials in the workplace for current employees and mailing materials to the last-known addresses of former employees, before the application would be processed further.

The Pay Equity Office requested an adjournment sine die on consent as the parties were attempting to resolve the matter.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment for a period of not more than nine months, after which the application would be deemed abandoned if no party requested to proceed.

The scheduled Pre-Hearing Conference was cancelled.

The applicant brought an application under the Pay Equity Act.

At the request of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die for a period of three months, after which it will be deemed abandoned if no party seeks to proceed.

The Pay Equity Office sought enforcement of an order against the employer, while the employer brought a companion application challenging the order on the basis that it employed fewer than ten employees and was not subject to the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held the enforcement application in abeyance pending the determination of the employer's application.

As the original order resulted from an audit rather than an individual complaint, the Tribunal directed the employer to post copies of the order, the application, and the Tribunal's decision in the workplace to provide notice to its employees before the matter could proceed.

The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal asserting that the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's Order.

The employer did not file a response.

Although the Tribunal could conclude non-compliance, the Office's application suggested potential partial compliance.

The Tribunal referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a Pre-Hearing Conference.

The employer sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision.

On agreement of the employer and the union, the Tribunal extended the time for the union and the Pay Equity Office to file their responses to the reconsideration request until May 7, 2015.

The applicant requested an extension of time to comply with a previous Tribunal direction to file and deliver a proposed pay equity plan.

The Tribunal granted the extension and adjusted the deadlines for the responding party employees' response submissions and the applicant's reply submissions.

The applicant employer sought to present a motion for orders facilitating the preparation and posting of a pay equity plan, or alternatively revoking a Review Officer's order.

Due to the sudden unavailability of the applicant's counsel, the oral hearing was adjourned.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the applicant to provide a copy of the proposed pay equity plan to the respondent employees and the Tribunal, and set a schedule for the respondents to file written submissions regarding the applicant's motion record and the proposed plan, followed by a scheduled hearing date.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order to the Tribunal for enforcement against the employer.

The employer conceded non-compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay retroactive pay equity adjustments with interest, adjust job rates, publish notices in local newspapers for former employees, and post the decision in the workplace.

The Pay Equity Office referred a Review Officer's Order to the Tribunal for enforcement, and the employer brought an application objecting to the same Order.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the employer's application.

As the employer conceded non-compliance and the Tribunal cannot consider the merits of the Order on a reference, the Tribunal invited the employer and the union to make written submissions on why the remedies sought by the Pay Equity Office should not be granted.

The applicant employer sought to stay the enforcement of a Review Officer's Order requiring pay equity adjustments, arguing it lacked the financial means to comply due to insufficient provincial funding.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis and to deny standing to numerous "interested parties" named by the applicant.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the interested parties did not have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome and declined to grant them intervener status.

The Tribunal also granted the union's motion to dismiss the application, reaffirming that lack of funding is not a defense to an employer's statutory obligation to comply with a pay equity plan or the Pay Equity Act.

The applicant sought a variance of a Review Officer's Order directing it to pay pay equity adjustments to 767 individuals.

The applicant argued that individuals who could not be located, who had settled, or who had not responded should be removed from the Order's schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the Order and had effectively done so.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no compelling purpose to vary or revoke the Order and terminated the application.