Skip to content

Newfoundland and Labrador Introduces Pay Equity & Transparency Law

By Ruth Trask  and Josh Merrigan

Pay equity is an increasing focus for governments and advocates in the employment world, which means that employers must also pay attention. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has announced that they are introducing pay equity and pay transparency legislation which carries implications for hiring and compensation of workers. Employers who do not comply are subject to penalties.

The Pay Equity and Pay Transparency Act will start to come into force on April 1, 2023 with pay equity requirements for core government. The Government has not yet announced when the law will come into force for other public bodies. The Act also creates pay transparency requirements which, sometime in the future, will be imposed on all employers in the province.

Who will be affected by the pay equity requirements?

  • Core government. Starting in April 2023, the pay equity provisions will apply only to the executive and legislative branch of the provincial government.
  • Public Bodies of moderate size. In the future, at a date which will be announced, the pay equity provisions will apply to “public bodies” including crown corporations, commissions, boards, courts, municipalities, regional health authorities, Memorial University of Newfoundland, College of the North Atlantic, school boards, and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. The pay equity provisions will not apply to public bodies that have fewer than 10 employees.

What will be required of employers under the pay equity regime?

Under the pay equity provisions, all public sector employers will be required to establish and maintain pay equity, which is defined as:

a compensation practice that is based on the relative value of the work performed, irrespective of the gender of employees and includes the requirement that the employer not establish or maintain a difference between the pay paid to employees based on gender who are performing work of equal or comparable value;

Public sector employers will also be required to prepare reports relating to pay equity and their actions taken, and submit them to the Pay Equity Officer, a new position established under the Act with responsibility for ensuring compliance.

The Act does not prevent differences in pay where the employer can show a difference in pay is the result of:

  • a formal seniority system that does not discriminate on the basis of gender;
  • a merit system that does not discriminate on the basis of gender;
  • a temporary employee training or development assignment that is available to all employees and leads to career advancement;
  • “red-circling” (where the value of a position has been downgraded and the pay of the incumbent employee has been frozen or the employee’s increases in pay have been curtailed until the pay for the downgraded position is equivalent to or greater than the pay payable to the incumbent);
  • or a skills shortage that is causing a temporary inflation in pay.

Finally, the pay equity provisions provide that an employer cannot establish or maintain pay equity by reducing, freezing, or red-circling the pay of an employee; or by placing an employee in a lower step of a pay range that has been adjusted upward.

What about pay transparency?

The Act also creates pay transparency requirements. When these sections come into force, they will apply to all employers in the province, not only those in the public sector. We don’t yet know when these will be made effective. There are two main implications:

  • employers will not be permitted to seek pay history information from an individual applying for employment; and
  • employers who publicly advertise a job posting will be required to include the expected pay or range of pay for the position.

Key Takeaways

  • This legislation will require affected public-sector employers to review, analyze, and evaluate their hiring and compensation practices, and to implement changes where they are needed, before the Act comes into force.
  • Employers may need to create systems to gather and track the information that will be needed to report to the Pay Equity Officer.
  • Affected employers may need to adjust pay levels to remove gender-based differences, or be prepared to establish that a pay difference is justifiable based on the permitted grounds.
  • Employers need to look out for the future proclamation date for the new pay transparency requirements, so they can adjust hiring practices accordingly.

This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

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