PSAC Pay Equity Bulletin

Human Rights Commission must explain decision to dismiss PSAC complaint

The Federal Court (Trial Division) has allowed PSAC's judicial review against a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission not to deal with one of our complaints.

In its 2002 complaint, PSAC maintained that the Canada Revenue Agency and the Minister of National Revenue discriminated against our current and former members in the manner in which they taxed lump sum pay equity payments.   Either the payment was taxed in the year it was received or, if the recipient elected to allocate the money according to the years in which it should have been received, compounding interest was charged until the date of payment.

The result in both cases was that our members, who had waited so long for pay equity, ended up either paying higher tax rates or compound interest on any arrears.   Yet those male-dominated groups who were found to perform work of equal value, and who had received their pay in the year in which it was earned, did not pay these higher rates or interest.   The PSAC maintained that this result was discriminatory.  

When the Commission dismissed our complaint, the only reason given was that “the facts…would not consitute a discriminatory practice.”   There was no other explanation nor was any analysis provided to support the decision.

On December 9 th , 2004, PSAC made its case to the Federal Court and a decision was issued a week later.   The Court concluded that the Commission's decision did not comply with their duty to provide reasons for their decisions.   The result is that the complaint must now go back to the CHRC so that it can reconsider the issues and render a new decision, with reasons.

In his decision, the Judge hearing the case urged the parties to review the process that PSAC believes is furthering inequity.   He also stated:   “The basis of the complaint here is that the application of income tax interest is seen to result in inequitable payments, leaving the promise of equal pay for work of equal value unfulfilled.”   We heartily agree.

A further update on this case will be published once the Human Rights Commission issues a new decision.