Legislation

Perils of Pay Equity

by

a young caucasian man in jeans taking two coins of one euro out of his pocketThe Pay Equity Act in Ontario has been in place since the 1980s. As we know from our studies, this legislation requires employers in Ontario to ensure that compensation levels for the value of work between traditionally designated ‘male’ and ‘female’ jobs are paid equally.

The pay equity process itself is extensive and exhaustive. It is also expensive, if compensation adjustments need to be implemented based on the results of the process. As this is a legislated issue for public sector employers in Ontario, it makes sense that public sector organizations will comply with this mandatory requirement.

Apparently not.

Recently, OPSEU (the union representing employees working with Community Living in Tillsonburg) issued an open letter as a result of the inability of Community Living to make the mandatory pay equity adjustments for its employees.

Click here to read the letter.

Why would any employer choose not to pay, when it is required to do so by law? As with most compensation dilemmas, the issue of affordability comes into play. A news article linked to this story provides an important insight into this seemingly simple pay issue.

Click here to read the article.

Public sector organizations receive their funding from the government. There are very strict parameters in place as to when and how the funding can be used, especially as it is linked to compensation. Given that the government will not fund pay equity adjustments, how can organizations like Community Living pay for mandatory wage adjustments if they do not have the money? It seems to be a Kafkaesque dilemma, as the government requiring the wage adjustments is the same source for funding that will not support the payment of these mandatory adjustments.

In the end, the employer is left holding the bag containing an unfunded liability and an unhappy workforce, which makes a heavy burden for the Compensation Manager to carry.

Discussion Questions:

  1. If you were the Compensation Manager for a public sector organization required to make Pay Equity Payments, what steps would you include to design an affordable compensation plan?
  2. Who should be responsible for ensuring funding for pay equity costs in the public sector? Explain your rationale.

What’s in a Name?

by

Disputes often arise from good intentions gone wrong.

Source: Paul Lemon/Shutterstock
Source: Paul Lemon/Shutterstock

In a recent case, the Prairie North Health Region (PNHR) tried to amend its practice for employees wearing name tags.   The change was to have the full name (first and last), job title, and picture of the employee on an identity badge, rather than just the employee’s first name.  As noted in the article, the purpose of implementing this change came as a result of the employer wanting to promote a patient first philosophy and to equalize the balance of power between patient and health care provider.

Click Here to Read the Article.

The union representing the workers, CUPE Local 5111, disagreed and filed a grievance in order to stop this change in practice.  The grievance, as noted in the article was based on several grounds, with the allegation of violation of employee privacy as the primary concern. The matter was not resolved internally.  As a result, the dispute went to arbitration for a final resolution imposed by a three-party panel of arbitrators.

The arbitrators’ decision fell on the side of the union.  The employer had to rescind the new policy and had to implement new cards showing only employee first names, job titles along with a photo.

Click Here to Read the Case.

As you will note, this case is extensive.  It shows the amount of critical detail, witnesses, testimony, legislative impact, evidence of past practice and presentation of other precedent setting cases required in order for this matter to be resolved through a board of arbitration.  It was definitely a costly exercise for everyone involved.

Clearly, our names and our right to protect our own personal privacy has value.

One wonders, however, how much the value of good intentions truly cost all of the parties in this case.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Who would benefit from employees wearing name tags with first and last name?
  2. Why do employees, in this case, have a ‘greater’ right to privacy than patients?
  3. What elements of this case would prevent it from being resolved within the applicable grievance resolution process?
  4. Why, do you think, a case like this would proceed to arbitration?
  5. What lessons would you take from your reading of this case?