26 total
Application for intervenor status denied as the applicant had only a commercial, not legal, interest.
During a hearing regarding the employer's alleged failure to negotiate a gender-neutral comparison system and pay equity plan, William M. Mercer Limited applied for intervenor status.
Mercer sought to protect its commercial interests, arguing that allegations of gender bias in its job evaluation methodology could negatively affect its business.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Mercer was not a party under section 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act, 1987, and had only a commercial and incidental interest rather than a direct legal interest in the proceedings.
Granting intervenor status would unnecessarily lengthen and complicate the hearing.
Tribunal qualifies expert on women's work but limits testimony to evaluating respondent's specific pay equity methodology.
The Applicant union sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from Dr. Pat Armstrong on women's work and gender bias in a pay equity dispute.
The Respondent employer objected to the witness's qualifications and the relevance of the proposed evidence.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal qualified Dr. Armstrong as an expert in the nature of women's work in the health care sector and critiquing methodologies.
However, the Tribunal limited the scope of her testimony to evaluating the specific methodology proposed by the Respondent and its potential gender effects, excluding general commentary on the Mercer comparison system or the parties' bargaining history.
Regional Municipality found to be the employer of the regional police force for pay equity purposes.
The Ontario Nurses Association brought an application alleging the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk violated the Pay Equity Act, 1987.
As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal had to determine whether the Regional Municipality was the employer of the Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police, such that the police force would be included in the Municipality's establishment for pay equity comparisons.
The Tribunal developed a four-part test to determine the employer for pay equity purposes, focusing on overall financial responsibility, responsibility for compensation practices, the nature of the service, and consistency with the Act's purpose.
Applying this test, the majority found that the Regional Municipality was the employer of the police force, as it bore the ultimate financial burden and responsibility for policing as a municipal function.
The police force was therefore part of the Municipality's establishment.
Tribunal strikes new allegations from Response but refuses to stay Review Services order.
The Applicant union moved to stay a Review Services order and to strike portions of the Respondent's Response.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion to stay, finding no statutory basis to stay a review officer's order when no enforcement was sought and the issues were already before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal granted the motion to strike portions of the Response that contained new allegations of bad faith bargaining not raised during the Review Services process, while allowing the Respondent to amend its remedy to seek confirmation of the review officer's order.
Tribunal assumes jurisdiction over pay equity complaint after review officer had reasonable opportunity to effect settlement.
The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the respondent municipality contravened the Pay Equity Act.
The respondent and the Board of Commissioners of Police challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the complaint, arguing the review officer had not declared an inability to effect a settlement.
The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under both s. 25(1)(a) and s. 25(1)(b) of the Act, finding that a reasonable opportunity for settlement had occurred and that an order had been issued entitling the applicant to request a hearing.
The Tribunal also granted the Board of Commissioners party status for the limited purpose of determining what constitutes the establishment.
Employer found to have laid off employees partly due to anti-union animus; reinstatement ordered.
The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer laid off sixteen employees to interfere with a union organizing campaign.
The employer claimed the layoffs were due to automation and economic reasons.
Applying the reverse onus under section 79(4a) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board found that while some layoffs were justified by business reasons, the extent of the layoffs was motivated in part by anti-union animus upon the employer learning of the certification application.
The Board ordered the reinstatement of the four most senior laid-off employees with compensation.
