CNESST decisions | 2010 Pay equity audit

We suggest that you contact the CNESST directly for any question about your individual complaint or the way it has been handled, since they are the ones who can answer it.

To reach the CNESST’s client relations centre, call 1-844-838-0808 (toll-free from anywhere in Québec) and choose option 4.

When the CNESST upholds a complaint, the increase is given to everyone in that job class, and not only to the people who filed a complaint.

Decision 19772X is available here (in French).

The CNESST decision covers 2010 pay equity audit complaints from individuals or unions that have not reached an agreement with the Treasury Board Secretariat regarding their complaint.

The decision deals with the following reasons for complaints: identification of a job class, change in gender predominance, and evaluation of job classes.

• Animal health technician
• Assistant head physiotherapist
• Clinical lecturer (medical electrophysiology)
• Clinical lecturer (physiotherapy)
• Community organizer
• Criminologist
• Dental hygienist (reserved title) or dental hygiene technician
• Dietitian / Nutritionist
• Educator
• Guidance counsellor
• Medical electrophysiology technician
• Medical records archivist
• Neuropsychologist
• Nuclear medicine technologist
• Oncology registrar
• Orientation and mobility specialist
• Orthoptist
• Orthotics-prosthetics technician
• Physical educator / Kinesiologist
• Physical rehabilitation therapist
• Physiotherapist
• Psychosocial research technician
• Recreation technician
• Recreologist
• Social worker
• Speech-language pathologist or audiologist
• Vision rehabilitation specialist

No, the decision does not cover all of the complaints filed for the three job titles mentioned above. It only applies to complaints contesting the non-recognition of the changed educational requirement and the evaluation of the job class.

However, under its one and only mandate to represent an individual complaint, the APTS did contest the employer’s bad faith in handling the change in physiotherapists’ level of education.

Only employees can file bad faith complaints arising from Article 15 of the Pay Equity Act, which is why we had a representation mandate for this complaint.

The CNESST gave a decision on complaints regarding bad faith on November 7. Unfortunately, the CNESST found that its investigation did not allow it to conclude that the Treasury Board had acted in bad faith or in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner with regard to physiotherapists, or that it had exhibited gross negligence. The CNESST therefore ruled that the complaints were unfounded.

Here is the decision regarding physiotherapists (in French).

More details are available in the email sent to physiotherapists on December 12, 2023.

The direct impact is explained below for job classes where the complaint was upheld by the CNESST, either in full or in part.

The CNESST decision also has an indirect impact on all of the job classes included in our pay equity plan (classes 1 to 4, as well as the education sector), because the employer is required by the CNESST to re-assess disparities in order to determine the decision’s impact, and to make corrections for job classes that would experience this impact.

When changes are made to various job classes, this may have an effect on the curve for predominantly male jobs, which is used as a comparable to determine if there is discrimination, and may lead to corrections for predominantly female job classes. At the time of publishing these FAQ, the employer had not yet carried out that reassessment. Once it has been carried out, we will analyze it and provide you with any additional information.

Guidance counsellor

 The CNESST acknowledges a change in predominance for this job class, from “gender-neutral” to “predominantly female.” No complaint was filed regarding the evaluation of the job. The CNESST therefore did not examine this aspect, and the salary ranking is unchanged.

The change in predominance means that the employer has an obligation in future pay equity audits to assess whether discrimination has reappeared, and, if so, to correct the situation.

Speech-language pathologist or audiologist

The CNESST raised the score of sub-factor 17, inherent risks. This increases the total points for the job class, but does not move it to a higher ranking. The salary ranking is therefore unchanged.

Orientation and mobility specialist

The CNESST raised the score of sub-factor 17, inherent risks. This increases the total points for the job class, but does not move it to a higher ranking. The salary ranking is therefore unchanged.

Vision rehabilitation specialist

The CNESST raised the score of sub-factor 17, inherent risks. This increases the total points for the job class, but does not move it to a higher ranking. The salary ranking is therefore unchanged.

Orthoptist

The CNESST recognized that sub-factor 10, job training, should be increased to the equivalent of a three-year bachelor’s degree. As a result, the ranking has been increased from 17 to 18, retroactive to December 31, 2010. The salary ranking is therefore changed and people in this job class will receive a retroactive payment.

That means the CNESST has rejected the complaint. As a consequence, there is no change in ranking, score or predominance for your job class.

If you’re not satisfied with the decision given by the CNESST on September 28, 2023 (19772X), you can contest it by communicating with the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT or Administrative Labour Tribunal) before December 27, 2023. You should keep in mind that the APTS settled its union complaints in July 2021, reaching an agreement that increased the value of several job classes. In signing the agreement, the APTS made a commitment to defend it. For this reason, the APTS cannot represent members who want to keep on challenging the CNESST in this regard.

As for the decision on the employer’s bad faith in the physiotherapists’ case, the CNESST indicates that you can contest it by communicating with the TAT before February 5, 2024. As we mentioned in our letter on December 12, 2023, the APTS will appeal the CNESST decision.

*If there is any difference between information provided here and information provided by the CNESST, the information provided by the CNESST takes precedence.

The employer can contest all or part of the decision. Should this be the case, we will study the possible impact of the employer’s challenge and update this section of the FAQ accordingly.