Ever since women entered the workforce, they have faced many inequalities, the primary one being unfair wages. Pay equity is an underlying principle of fairness in the workplace for employees based on the content of their jobs. It has evolved to what is now known as "equal pay for work of equal value" and concerns the gender-related discrimination of women. In recent years, Canada has shown that it is a leader in implementing proactive legislation while Canadian courts have ruled in favor of pay equity in several high-profile cases. Much of Canada's success can be attributed to the efforts of strong unions who have battled to uphold the rights of their workers. Perhaps no case in pay equity history is as focal as the sixteen year battle won by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) against the federal government. The case, which was settled this past winter, compensated over 230,000 employees with over $3.3 billion and stands as a benchmark in social justice. As we approach an age where gender barriers are finally breaking, the positive strides that Canada has taken towards achieving a fair and equal workplace has solidified its position as a social leader in North America and the world.
It is not surprising that in today's workplace men and women are paid different wages for essentially the same job. Through legislation, many countries have fought in earnest to right this imbalance. However, discrimination against women in the workplace is much more than one-dimensional. This problems exists in three forms: a long existing wage gap between the two sexes for equal work, discrimination in job placement, and an under evaluation of worth with respect to female dominated occupations. Under evaluation of worth is the most difficult of the three to define and legislate but perhaps the most rampant form of discrimination. It is based on the premise that jobs composed of a majority of females will receive less that jobs comprised largely of males even though the two jobs are under the same establishment and of comparable worth. The method of evaluation is based on a gender-neutral comparison system which takes into account skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. To better understand this principle, a case between CUPE Local 1734 and the York Region Board of Education can be cited. In the settlement, which took place in the late 1980s, certain female-dominated jobs were compared with male dominated jobs. In one instance, the discrepancy between head secretaries and audio visual technicians, which were deemed to be of comparable value, was $4.86 per hour. The 600 members affected by the settlement were compensated with over 2 million dollars and wage adjustments were made. Today, it is very unlikely that an employer would pay different wages for the same job. Because of this, the term wage gap has expanded to include a difference in wages for work of equal value. We are now entering an age where job placement opportunities are not limited by gender. Many large corporations are actively practicing employment equity by maintaining an equal ratio of male to female employees. As illustrated by the CUPE Local 1734 case, when an environment of inequality exists those affected are entitled to compensation.
Through hard fought legal cases, compensation has become a common solution when dealing with past inequalities that have existed within the workplace. However, compensation has also left bitter opposition in its wake since a large settlement can affect an entire establishment. For example, settlements against our federal government put a strain on the Canadian taxpayer. Despite this, compensation is a necessary step in achieving an equitable environment in the workplace. To fully understand the nature of compensation we must first examine the background behind pay equity from its roots internationally to its implementation within our own nation.
Pay equity saw it roots in the early part of this century. Shortly after World War I, pay equity gained international status. The war had broken traditional female role barriers as women worked in factories to support the war effort. Women, who were historically bound to the private sphere of house keeping, were now flourishing independently in the public sphere of the industrial workplace. After the war, women remained a part of the work force but as they participated in traditionally all male occupations they faced a gender-related wage gap.
In 1919, the International Labour Organization (ILO) passed nine principles in the Treaty of Versailles, Part XIII, Section II, Article 427. The seventh principle concerned pay equity proposing: The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
To many, pay equity seemed like a feminist cause that would pass with time. However, the movement gained momentum and support. Early opposition feared the elimination of the existing wage gap would destroy the traditional nuclear family. At the time, women took a supplemental role in household income whereas men were usually the sole breadwinners. With pay equity, women might become less dependent on their male counterparts and loosen their ties with the home. Despite opposition against the pay equity cause, enough people believed that an inequality existed which had to be changed.
By 1951, the ILO proposed the Equal Remuneration Convention 100. The convention was based on the principle of equal pay for men and women workers of equal value. This legislation was more expansive than just "equal pay for equal work." Occupations which were female dominated were now compared with higher paying male occupations based on a system of value. At the time, Canada believed that the collective bargaining process, not legislation, was the key to pay equity, and subsequently did not support the convention. Even without Canada's participation, there was enough support of the legislation amongst the other participating countries that it was passed. Despite Canada's initial misgivings concerning pay equity legislation, from 1951 to 1959, several provinces as well as the federal government adopted "equal pay for equal work" legislation. This addressed the inequality in paying different wages to men and women who performed the same or substantially similar jobs. However this did not yet deal with the occupational segregation which existed between gender dominated occupations. It wasn't until 1972 that Canada ratified ILO Convention 100. This was based on a recommendation made two years earlier by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. With Canada's adoption of "equal pay for work of equal value", the road would be paved for uniquely Canadian pay equity legislation.
The Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was implemented in 1976, was the first Canadian attempt at pay equity legislation. The charter defined pay equity in section 19 as: every employer must, without discrimination, grant equal salary or wages to the members of his personnel who perform equivalent work at the same place.
Shortly after in 1977, the Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted. This was Canada's first attempt to address pay equity at the federal level and it would play a pivotal role in future deliberations. The act stated: It is the discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value (Section 11 (1)).
Between 1985 and 1989, Manitoba, the Yukon, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick all developed some form of pay equity legislation. Of Canada's 13 jurisdictions, which included federal, provincial and the two territories, 9 of these had legislation in place by 1990. With legislation in place, many establishments either implemented changes or faced the consequences. Complaints filed against an establishment are investigated to determine the existence of any discriminatory practices. If the findings reveal a wage gap based on work of equal value, two courses of action can be taken. Compensation and wage adjustments can be made as a form of settlement or the case can be appealed in court. The appeal would then attempt to negate the original investigation by attacking the methods by which the wage gap was determined. It must be understood that the evaluation of gender discrimination is not an easy task. Experts are required to compare jobs that can be completely different with a system of evaluation that has no clear formula. This part of the process is where unions can play an important role. Unions can contribute both expertise and gravity to a complaint. In effect, an establishment does not contend only with the party with the complaint, it must deal with a union representing a large portion of their workforce. Unions walk a fine line when they enter such a dispute. It is in the best interest of a union to exclude all pay equity deliberations from the collective bargaining arena and argue that these basic rights are not commodities to be traded. If pay equity is part of the collective bargaining process the settlements may come out of collective bargaining funds and not as a separate compensation. The possibility that pay equity could be bargained away in male-dominated unions is also a risk. In the last twenty years, unions have played a major role in helping their employees receive proper compensation and wage adjustments.
The highest profile pay equity case in Canada, and perhaps even internationally as well, involved the Canadian federal government. The representative union in this case was the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC). This case began in 1983 when the PSAC lodged a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for clerical workers. The complaint cited discrimination based on the definition put forth in the 1977 Human Rights Act. It was not until 1985 that a four-year joint study between the Treasury Board, PSAC and other federal unions began. The study indicated that a wage gap existed between men and women with respect to work of equal value. Despite the results of the study, the Treasury Boards did wage adjustments for only a portion of the workers and ignored large parts of the study. By 1990, the PSAC filed another complaint due to the Treasury Board's inadequate response. In 1991, a tribunal was appointed to the case and began six years of hearings. It was during this time that the government tried to dispute the tribunal's jurisdiction before the Federal Court. The government lost both attempts. After several years of hearings, the Treasury Board finally understood they were waging a losing battle and tried to cut their losses. An attempt to settle for $1.3 billion was rejected by the PSAC in 1997.
On July 29, 1998 the tribunal ruled that the government must pay up to $5 billion in back pay and interest to over 230,000 workers, the large majority of which were women. Although Ottawa attempted an appeal of the tribunal's decision, the Federal Court dismissed it. The appeal challenged the tribunal's formula of comparison for jobs of equal value. The presiding judge, Justice John Evans, was perturbed by Ottawa's appeal. He exclaimed that the federal governments interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act was limited and only paid "lip service to the regular admonitions from the Supreme Court of Canada that, as quasi-constitutional legislation, human rights statutes are to be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner". Justice Evans closed by stating that the 16-year dispute had gone on for far too long. In mid-November of 1999 the federal government agreed to pay from $3.3 billion to $3.6 billion in compensation. The roughly 230,000 employees were entitled to back pay from as far back as 1985. Individual settlements ranged from $500 to $60,000. This case set a national precedent and will undoubtedly provide hope and confidence to future pay equity disputes.
The PSAC case has been only one of many successful cases. However, most pay equity cases, won or lost, are of small impact to anyone who is not directly involved. The involvement of the federal government in the PSAC case, coupled with the sizeable amount of the settlement, has put the issue of pay equity into the public consciousness. The common person was shown that inequality against women is not to be tolerated and that attempts are being made to correct past injustices. The fact that this event took place in Canada only serves to support Canada's role as a leader in dealing with pay equity.
The pay equity movement has progressed a long way since its fledgling state after the First World War. Although it has oftentimes been improperly linked with radical feminist movements, pay equity has consistently moved forward. The opposition may complain that the signing of a contract is binding but they fail to understand that pay equity supercedes any such agreement. Receiving equal pay for work of equal value is not a benefit, it is a basic human right. It is not a feminist cause; it is the underlying social principle of equality between men and women. Canada has overcome many discrimination barriers in the pay equity movement through creating and enforcing its legislation. With the help of strong unions, Canada has become a world leader in this cause by showing a willingness to make amends for past mistakes no matter the cost. Achieving pay equity has been a long and arduous path but with the hardships that have been overcome, the future looks very promising.
Alberta civil servants want pay equity. Canadian Press Newswire. 20 October, 1999
Burkart, M. Lynn. Implementing Pay Equity in Ontario. School of Industrial Relations Research Essay Series No. 28. Kingston: Industrial Relations Centre, Queen's University, 1990
Pay Equity Legislation: Linking Economic Issues and Policy Concerns. Ed. Richard P. Chaykowski Research and Current Issues Series No. 59. Kingston: Industrial Relations Centre, Queen's University, 1989
Cuneo, Carl J. Pay Equity. The Labour-Feminist Challenge. Toronto:Oxford University Press, 1990
Equity Bill Tops $3 Billion. Ottawa Letter. 17 November, 1999
Gunderson, Morley. Comparable worth and gender discrimination: an international perspective. Geneva:International Labour Organization, 1994
Levitt, Howard. Feds have a duty to repeal pay equity: decision creates windfall for well-paid group. Financial Post National Post 8 November, 1999:v.2(11) pg C13
Lewis, Debra J. Just Give Us The Money: A Discussion of Wage Discrimination and Pay Equity. Vancouver: Women's Research Centre, 1988
Living with the Deal you Made. Editorial. Focus on Canadian Employment and Equality Rights. November, 1999: v.5(23)
Loney, Martin. Equity ruling shows court in grip of radical feminism. Financial Post National Post 20 October, 1999: v.1(360) pg C7
Nahlah, Ayed. Public servants win the latest pay equity case. Canadian Press Newswire. 19 October, 1999
Pay Equity Flash. Focus on Canadian Employment and Equality Rights. November, 1999: v.5(23): 183
Pay equity problematic for Ottawa. Ottawa Letter. 3 November, 1999
Recent Cases. - Tribunal rejects broad definition of establishment. Ontario Pay and Employment Equity Guide. 24 November, 1999
Some key dates in the pay-equity dispute. Canadian Press Newswire. 22 October, 1999