Skip to content

Client Update: Pay equity legislation announced for federally regulated employers

Julia Parent and Graham Haynes

On October 29, 2018, the federal government tabled national pay equity legislation as part of its second budget implementation bill, Bill C-86. This legislation is targeted at reducing the portion of the gender wage gap which is caused by the undervaluation of work traditionally done by women.

Application

The Act, entitled An Act to Establish a Proactive Pay Equity Regime within the Federal Public and Private Sectors (Pay Equity Act) (the “Act”) applies to all federally regulated employers with 10 or more employees, including the federal public service, the federal private sector (i.e. banks, telecommunication companies, marine shipping companies, interprovincial and international transportation companies and others) and the Prime Minister and ministers’ offices.

It is worth noting that the requirements imposed under the Act are different for small employers (defined as those with 10 to 99 employees) and large employers (defined as those with 100 employees or more).

Obligations for employers

Development of a pay equity plan

The Act requires employers to develop a comprehensive pay equity plan within three years of becoming subject to the Act. The pay equity plan must, among other things, identify job classes and their gender predominance in the workplace, analyze the value of the job classes within the workplace and identify where imbalances exist between female and male predominant job classes of equal value.

Compensation equalization

If an employer’s pay equity plan identifies imbalances in a female-predominant job class when compared to male-predominant job classes of equal value, employers will have to phase-in compensation increases which equalize the compensation paid to the female-predominant job class. This may apply to more than one female-predominant job class. If the total equalization amount is at least one percent of the employer’s annual payroll, the employer will have to implement compensation increases. The number of years the entity will have to equalize payment is based on the size of the employer.

Other obligations

The Act also imposes other responsibilities on employers such as providing information to employees regarding dispute resolution procedures, updating the pay equity plan every five years and submitting a short annual statement regarding oversight of the program.

Enforcement

The Act contemplates the appointment of a Pay Equity Commissioner and the creation of a Pay Equity Unit of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which would administer and enforce the Act through a range of compliance and enforcement tools including monetary penalties.

Further information

This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above information, and how it applies to your specific situation, please contact a member of the Stewart McKelvey Labour and Employment group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top