BC’s Pay Transparency Act and Pay Transparency Reports
By: Michelle QuinnCo-authored by Articled Student, Aivrey McKinley
This is an update to our previous post: BC Pay Transparency Act: Employers – What You Need To Know
The Act requires employers to complete annual transparency reports from the period of January 1 to November 1 on a yearly basis.
The reports must be prepared annually by November 1st of each year through a phased approach:
- By November 1, 2024, all employers with 1000+ employees or more will be required to complete reports.
- By November 1, 2025, this requirement will extend to all employers with 300+ employees.
- By November 1, 2026, this requirement will extend to all employers with 50+ employees.
Since our last update, the B.C. Government has posted online resources on its website to guide employers in preparing their pay transparency reports. The resources include:
- a summary of information the reports must include;
- examples of reports, resources employers should refer to when collecting employee information; and
- an online tool employers can use to generate their pay transparency reports.
Pay transparency reports must include:
- the name and mailing address of the organization
- the applicable North American Industry Classification 2022 sector code or NAICS code
- the dates on which the reporting period began and ended
- the number of employees as of January 1, reported as within one of the following ranges:
- 50 to 299 employees
- 300 to 999 employees
- 1000 or more employees
- the gender category that is being compared with (for example, a comparison of men versus women or non-binary employees)
- the results of the pay gap calculations
Compliance and Reporting Obligations
Employers must publish completed and current reports on their publicly accessible website or, if there is no public website, make copies of the report available to their employees at the workplace or to any member of the public on request. For those employers completing reports on behalf of Indigenous Peoples, special considerations and obligations of consultation may apply.
Guidelines for Collecting Gender Information
To fulfill the reporting requirements and in compliance with reporting obligations, employers must collect information from employees by asking them to voluntarily self-identify by using following gender categories:
- man;
- woman;
- non-binary; and
- unknown.
Employees must be specifically notified that the disclosure of information is voluntary.
The information does not need to be collected annually: employers must make reasonable efforts to collect the required information from their employees when preparing their first pay transparency report. Additionally, employers must make reasonable efforts to collect gender information when a new employee is onboarded.
Employers must also provide employees with the opportunity, at least annually, to provide gender pay information or to update or change any information previously provided.
If you would like more information about the Act and Pay Transparency Regulations and need assistance with preparing a pay transparency report, please contact any member of our Employment and Human Rights Group.
-
In this blog post, I reviewed the recent human rights case of Gaucher v. Fraser Health Authority where the Tribunal dismissed Ms. Gaucher’s discrimination complaint. Ms. Gaucher claimed that her gradual return to work (“GRTW”) plan was flawed and she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability in contravention of the BC Human Rights Code. In its decision, the Tribunal considered the duty to accommodate and held that, while the plan was not “perfect”, the employer would be able to prove at a hearing that it reasonably accommodated Ms. Gaucher throughout her GRTW.
-
Parmar v. Tribe Management Inc., 2022 BCSC 1675 is the first civil court decision to tackle whether an unpaid leave of absence for noncompliance with an employer’s mandatory vaccination policy can be considered constructive dismissal. The issue before the Court was whether Tribe Management Inc.’s decision to place Ms. Parmar on an unpaid leave of absence was reasonable following the implementation of a mandatory vaccination policy given the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time. Ms. Parmar refused to be vaccinated due to choice. She did not apply to her employer to be exempt from the mandatory vaccination policy based on medical or religious reasons. The BC Supreme Court found that it was not a constructive dismissal. Instead, it found that Ms. Parmar had repudiated the employment contract. As a result, the claim was dismissed, and Ms. Parmar was not entitled to any damages.
