Susan Dunbar

A group of psychiatric nurses challenged the pay equity plan negotiated between their union (OPSEU) and the employer (Management Board Secretariat), alleging it contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The plan utilized a policy-capturing methodology involving factor analysis and multiple regression to determine job values and select male comparators.

The applicants argued that the methodology, specifically the modification of factors and the presence of negative regression coefficients, failed to adequately measure and positively value female work, thereby leaving gender bias in the system.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, preferring the statistical evidence of the respondents' experts, and found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the decisions of the working group were unreasonable or that the plan contravened the Act.

The Tribunal received letters from counsel and agreed to cancel scheduled hearing days.

The Tribunal declined to add the Group of Employees at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital to the complaint, despite the respondents' qualified consent, because the employees had not raised their complaint at Review Services, depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

The applicants sought to withdraw their pay equity complaint against their bargaining agent, OPSEU, and proceed solely against their employer, the Crown.

The Tribunal denied the motion, holding that under section 32(1) of the Pay Equity Act, the bargaining agent is a necessary party to a complaint regarding a pay equity plan that relates to a bargaining unit.

The Tribunal also consolidated another similar complaint into the present application.

In a reconsideration hearing before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal, the applicant employees argued the matter should be decided on legal argument alone regarding their standing to challenge a deemed approved pay equity plan under s. 22(1) of the Pay Equity Act.

The respondent union and employer argued the complex legal issues should be considered in the context of evidence.

The Tribunal ruled that while a member of a bargaining unit can complain under s. 22(1), the more complex issue of challenging a deemed approved plan is better analyzed in an evidentiary context.

The Tribunal directed that evidence on the merits be heard prior to considering the legal arguments.