Pay Equity

[This case has been followed closely by a long-standing member who has been involved with this case since the beginning.  We are happy to share his summary with you.]

The CNESST refuses to modify its earlier decisions concerning aspects of the use of a pseudo-statistical method for comparing the salaries of predominantly female positions with those of predominantly male ones. “Pseudo-statistical” because, as our own pay equity expert pointed out, the formula that McGill used doesn’t begin to capture an accurate picture of the salaries of male or female job classes. It thus doesn’t permit the comparisons between the two groups to be made, as required by law. They also refuse to accept that McGill has no systematic method of analysing and evaluating jobs. The only response they have to our pointing out the multiple problems is that “all methods involve a certain degree of subjectivity.”

The CNESST has developed NO formal standards for what constitutes a rigorous and consistent method of job evaluation (you are invited to go to their website should you wish to verify the lack of specifics on this as on many other things.) It has no statistician or actuary on staff, nor any experts on remuneration.

This past January 21st, 2026, the CNESST rendered a decision on MUNACA’s complaints filed against McGill on August 2 and 26, 2016. The reason the decision was rendered on that date is that the law put them under a deadline;  had they failed to render a decision by the deadline, they would have lost jurisdiction entirely.

As a reminder, a job class is defined as positions that have similar duties, qualifications, responsibilities and the same remuneration.

Considering all of these reasons, and more, MUNACA has decided to contest this latest decision with the labour tribunal (le Tribunal administratif du travail). The upcoming decision from that same tribunal will give some indication as to what our chances will be of prevailing in this new review. We anticipate that McGill will also be contesting the decision, since it includes orders they have no wish to comply with.

We attach a link to the CNESST decision.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to call or email us at reception@munaca.com.

After McGill failed to conduct a pay equity audit in 2010, as required by law, MUNACA filed a complaint in 2011 following McGill’s posting of its results. In 2016 McGill posted modifications to its original posting (in 2011), and a few months later posted its results for 2015. MUNACA then filed complaints on each of those postings. The union has alleged that McGill has failed to conduct audits and that there is effectively no legally admissible pay equity plan in place. Prior to this, however, in 2014, MUNACA signed agreements to settle a maintenance complaint filed in 2005.

Please consult the website of the Quebec Pay Equity Commission for a list of resources, including the text of the current Pay Equity Act.