Question

Matthew was hired to work at a factory here in Windsor. The factory currently employs 250 people. He was very excited to start this new position because he just finished his program in an automotive technician, and he was going to be working on equipment to make parts for cars. He was hired at $20/hour and told there would be a 90-day probationary period. At the end of his probationary period, he would receive a raise of $5/hour. The company also promised that there would be annual performance review and based on the results of his annual performance review, he could potentially receive raises of up to $1/hour each year with a maximum of $35/hour possible. The factory also advised Matthew that they would provide a prescription, dental, and eye care insurance.

1. Matthew’s job requires working with heavy equipment and extremely hot temperatures. One day, he notices that a lever that is required to be in the locked position when the machine is in use is loose and requires him to hold it in place. He reports to his supervisor that he believes this to be an unsafe work environment and refuses to go back to that machine until it is fixed. The employer tells him it is fine and to either go back to the machine or leave and not come back. Matthew files a complaint with the Ministry of Labour. Who do you think will successful (Matthew or the employer)? Please explain your answer in detail.
2. Matthew becomes good friends with some of his co-workers and one night while they were all out at a bar socializing, he talks about what a great company it is and how he loves the amount they make for doing their jobs. One of his female employees that has the exact same position as Matthew is surprised by this comment as she makes less than he does even though they were hired at the same time. First, identify if this is a Pay Equity Act issue or an Employment Standards Act issue. Is it legal for the female employee to make less for the exact same job as Matthew under these circumstances (make sure you pay close attention to the case information)?  
3. In the same group conversation as question 2, another female employee that works in a different department, but just as difficult of a job, is also upset as she also receives less money. She believes it is because her position has always been filled by a woman since the company started. First, identify if this is a Pay Equity Act issue or an Employment Standards Act issue. If she files a grievance, who do you think would be successful (her or the employer)? A complete answer will tell me what you believe would be the argument each side would take to prove their case

Answer 1

In the first scenario, Matthew will be successful because it is necessary for the employer to ensure safety of all employees working within the organization. Matthew identified that one of the lever of the machine was loose that was unsafe working on that machine. As per the safety provision of employees, it is necessary for the employer to provide safe working environment to all employees. Thus, the result will come in favor of the employee as one of the levers of the machine was loose that is a threat to employees working on the machine.

In the second scenario, the issue is a Pay Equity Act issue because Pay Equity Act helps in redressing systemic gender discrimination in compensation for same work. No, it is not legal for female employees to make less pay for the exact same job. If an employer is paying less to female as compared to male employees for the exact same job, the employer shall be questioned in the court of law. Employers ar bound by the law to pay equal compensation to everry employee irrespective of their gender for the exact same job.

In the third scenario, the issue is an Employment Standards Act issue. Employers should pay equal compensation to employees who are working different but equally difficult positions. If the employee files a grievance, she will be successful as the decision will come in her favor because she is not getting standard payment by the employer.