Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER April 3, 2017 NEWS 3 LCBO casual workers in Ontario achieve equal pay for equal work Employers need to be 'constantly vigilant' about compensation for groups: Lawyer BY JOHN DUJAY THE FIGHT to achieve equal pay for equal work took another step forward after a ruling com- pelled the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) to pay casual workers the same rate as full-time workers. An agreement reached Nov. 7, 2016, was finalized after an arbi- tration hearing Feb. 4, 2017. All permanent full-time, part-time and casual customer service rep- resentatives of the LCBO were placed on the same pay grid, elim- inating a practice that saw casual employees paid less for undertak- ing essentially the same work. With this new grid, about 77 per cent of casuals (4,224 of 5,509) will see a wage increase, with an immediate average raise of 9.5 per cent. As well, the 220 permanent full-time consumer service reps who are not currently at the top of the grid would receive raises, with an average increase of 7.7 per cent. A 2013 complaint to the Hu- man Rights Tribunal of Ontario started the ball rolling for the On- tario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU). "It represents a ground-break- ing victory, and presents an op- portunity for other workplaces, and other unions to use this as an example of (how) there should be equal pay for equal work," said Warren (Smokey) omas, presi- dent of OPSEU in Ottawa. LCBO casual workers make up 84 per cent of customer service representatives and the "vast ma- jority" are female, he said. "The pay difference between part-time and full-time (pay) can be anywhere between $2 an hour to about $6 or $7 an hour, maybe more in some places. ere's quite a wide gap," said omas, adding OPSEU is hopeful this ruling might lead to "societal change." "While there have been a lot of gains, there is a long way to go," he said. "To me, this is a huge vic- tory, but will it be earth-shatter- ing? No. It's just one more victory for labour groups on the way to trying to achieve equal pay for equal work and a living wage for everybody." The ruling might not have a wide-ranging effect because of how it started, according to An- drea Zwack, partner at Gall, Legge, Grant and Munroe in Vancouver. "It's the result of (a collective) agreement and it is an interest ar- bitration," she said. "It has a lesser impact than, for example, if the hu- man rights commission had actu- ally ruled the LCBO was discrimi- nating against its female employ- ees. at would be a much more significant impact for employers." But the ruling cannot be ig- nored by employers, said Zwack. "It does raise a caution, or a direction, to employers and to unions, quite frankly, in their col- lective bargaining with respect to the need to be constantly vigilant that the way you are compensat- ing different groups of employees is not having an adverse impact on one particular group over another, based on some protected ground." is issue is seen endemically in retail, said Sarah Kaplan, di- rector of the Institute for Gender and the Economy at the Univer- sity of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. "Certain job classifications end up being more gendered female, and those are the ones that end up being paid less." Many retailers use the casual category to justify a pay differ- ence, she said. "It means there is no direct comparison because — as in the LCBO case — there are the casual workers versus the full- time workers: We're paying differ- ently because those are different jobs, but what those different jobs are hiding is unequal pay, if one of those jobs is gendered." "e implication for other re- tail establishments is for them to be looking into whether there are certain jobs that are highly gendered female — that do have a lower pay scale than other jobs — which are pretty much equivalent work and have a higher pay scale." Reasons for inequality Part of the reason gender pay in- equity exists may be because the ADDRESSING > pg. 17 "is is a huge victory but will it be earth- shattering? No."

• Cover