HR Blog

HR Blog
Supreme Court of Canada Rules in Favour of Postal Workers in Pay Equity Human Rights Decision
|
Published on November 21, 2011 | |
Stringer LLP Admin |
The claim was filed 28 years ago by female employees of Canada Post with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), alleging discrimination due to discrepancies in pay between workers in clerical positions, which were female dominated, compared with those in the male dominated postal operations group.
In a 2005 decision, Tribunal awarded the workers $150 million in damages plus interest. The Tribunal’s decision was overturned by the Federal Court in 2008 and this was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court overturned the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision on Thursday.
The decision could mean that Canada Post will be liable for up to $250 million in damages to clerical staff who worked for Canada Post between 1983-2002.
The Ontario Pay Equity Act (the “Act”) requires the implementation of equal pay for work of comparable value, based on comparing male and female job classes as defined in the Act. In 1987 the gender wage gap was 36%, the most recent data indicates that the gap is now at 29%.
In January 2011 a Wage Gap program was initiated by the Ontario Pay Equity Office to determine whether gender discrimination in pay practices is still prevalent. Ontario Workplaces with more than 500 employees who have not recently been visited by a review officer are being contacted first. Small and medium sized workplaces will follow.
There is no limitation period under the Act, and employers can be liable for up to 20 years of arrears plus interest. If your organization has (1) never done Pay Equity formally, or (2) grown past the minimum of 10 employees over the last 2 decades, you may want to seek legal advice.
Subscribe to Blog feed
Recent Blog
- Court Signals Summary Judgement Often Appropriate for Wrongful Dismissal Actions
- Minister Jason Kenney Announces changes to the Immigration System to Promote Canadian Labour Market
- Landmark Decision on Certification of ESA Class Actions and Constructive Dismissal
- OLRB rules on electrician exemption in construction regulation
- What Does the Crown Have to Prove in an OHSA Prosecution?
- The Supreme Court to Lay Down the Law on Random Alcohol Testing
- OLRB Directs Inspector to Produce Investigation Records
- Employer Successfully Defends a Charge of Failing to Report an Accident to WSIB
- Minor Change to the OLRB’s Rules of Procedure could have a Major Impact
- Debate Continues over Family Caregiver Leave
- Divisional Court provides Guidance as to What Constitutes a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination
- Forum Shopping a Growing Problem - Published in The Lawyers Weekly
- Bill 168 and Section 50 of the OHSA: Has the Labour Board Closed the Floodgates?
- Proposed Family Caregiver Leave goes through Second Reading
- British Columbia Court of Appeal upholds just cause dismissal
- The Latest on Forum Shopping: The Human Rights Tribunal is Considering Whether a WSIB Case Manager Decision is a “Proceeding”
- Employees in fiduciary relationships may be entitled to bonuses even upon breach of duties
- ONCA Upholds Brito but Quashes Punitive Award
- Invasion of Privacy in the Workplace Could Lead to Liability for Snooping Employees
- Human Rights Tribunal Heeding Clear Direction from Supreme Court
- Taking a Hard Line on Termination Entitlements Ends Up Costing More
Categories
- aoda
- class actions
- construction labour relations
- constructive dismissal
- disability benefits
- employment insurance
- employment law
- employment standards
- fiduciary duties
- first nations
- general litigation
- human rights
- immigration
- labour law
- occupational health and safety
- privacy
- restrictive covenants
- stringer llp announcements
- workers' compensation
- wrongful dismissal litigation


