12. Before the mandatory posting date, every employer to whom this Part applies shall, using a gender-neutral comparison system, compare the female job classes in each establishment of the employer with the male job classes in the same establishment to determine whether pay equity exists for each female job R.S.O. 1990, c. P.7, s. 12.
(1) Can the tool determine the value of the work performed using the statutory criteria of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions?
(2) Is the choice of sub-factors, if used, undertaken free of gender bias?
(3) Are levels or equivalencies, if used, free of gender bias?
(4) Is the composite required by subsection 5(1) decided in such a way that gives value to all the statutory criteria and is point weighting free of gender bias?
The Tribunal ruled that the standard to be applied to the collection of job content data is one of accuracy. Also, a gender-neutral comparison system may involve a formalized job evaluation system, but does not require it, as Act makes no specific references to job evaluation.
Tina Lahtinen v Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, 2020 CanLII 86643 (ON PEHT) 2020-11-02 — The Applicant argued that her job was unreasonably valued, and it was compared to an inappropriate male comparator with lesser responsibility, resulting in a violation of the Act. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant failed to identify issues that violates the Act. Instead, the Respondent argued that the Applicant is challenging the evaluation of an individual job in a pay equity plan, which the Respondent submitted should not be subject to review in isolation. The Tribunal held that employees cannot be placed in a higher band on a plan simply because the employees’ position received increased responsibilities. Changes in responsibilities invites an employer to review a job class’s rating within a plan but does not open a review of the entire plan. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that two jobs can have relatively the same value using the GNCS despite their job descriptions appearing different on the surface. Therefore, the Tribunal will generally not analyze how any individual job class has been evaluated in isolation or against a small subset of other positions.
Dare Foods Limited v. Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers International Union, Local 264, 1992 CanLII 4695 (ON PEHT) 1992-09-28 — The parties agreed that there was no issue before the panel with respect to the gender neutrality of the evaluation manual comprising the comparison system. Rather, the parties could not agree whether how the system was applied to determine the value of the work was in a gender-neutral manner. The Tribunal concluded that the evaluations failed to reflect and positively value the full range of content in the female job classes. Moreover, values which were recognized were not equally or consistently applied. The parties were directed to amend the job fact sheets to record all job requirements of all the job classes.
Peterborough (City) v. Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 519, 1997 CanLII 12087 (ON PEHT) 1997-06-11 — A Review Officer ordered that the parties implement a pay equity plan they prepared, but the Employer objected on the basis that the comparison system was gender biased. The Tribunal held that the comparison system was flawed. At para 28-34, the Tribunal discussed the adequacy of collection of job information in the specific context of the actions of the joint committee. The Joint Committee did not collect job information in advance of applying the system and the absence of a systematic collection of job content from the incumbents in the job classes was inadequate pursuant to the Act.
Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1328 v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2009 CanLII 37952 (ON PEHT) 2009-04-29 — Employees challenged the quality of the position description questionnaires completed by incumbents in a job class and used by a joint committee to evaluate a job class. The Tribunal dismissed the application and stated that the entire pay equity exercise is about relativity and consistent application of the tool. Thus, as was the case here, where there is only evidence regarding the evaluation of one job in isolation, without explanation of how the job evaluation tool was applied to other jobs in that unit, there is insufficient basis to succeed in a complaint regarding a job evaluation result by a joint committee.
Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Women’s College Hospital, 1992 CanLII 4706 (ON PEHT) 1992-08-04 — The Tribunal addressed the adequacy of the parties’ gender-neutral comparison system in light of the test used to assess gender neutrality as articulated in Haldimand-Norfolk (No.6). The Tribunal considered the sub factors that were used by the parties to determine skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions and concluded the tool did not properly value nursing work.
Ottawa Board of Education v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, 1996 CanLII 7947 (ON PEHT) 1996-05-28 — At paras. 36 and 37, The Tribunal notes that complaints about the choice of a gender-neutral comparison system are properly the subject of objections or pre-deemed approval complaints. After a plan is deemed approved, an Applicant must make out a contravention of Part I of the Act. To demonstrate gender bias may require expert evidence to show how Part I contravened. For the facts, see the summary of this case in s. 5.1(1).
Mackay v. Brant Community Healthcare System, 2017 CanLII 22872 (ON PEHT) 2017-04-03 and MacKay et al v. Brant Community Healthcare System, 2017 CanLII 37589 (ON PEHT) 2017-06-12 — On considering an application by a group of employees, the Tribunal states that when there is a Bargaining Agent in place, an employee has no rights with respect to the negotiation and implementation of pay equity plans as those rights are afforded to the Bargaining Agent to exercise on behalf of its Members. At para. 7, they clarify that only a Bargaining Agent can make a complaint under this section, and section 14.
