The recommendations stem from a three-year review of human rights law in Saskatchewan. The study was done by the Commission at the request of the Minister of Justice.

The recommendations are set out in a 160-page report, titled Renewing the Vision; Human Rights in Saskatchewan. It was released on July 11th by Justice Minister John Nilson and the chief commissioner at that time, Donna Greschner.

Nilson described the review as one which outlined options for taking the protection of human rights into the next century.

Greschner said the recommendations promote a multi-faceted approach to human rights protection "that combines complaint systems and public education with equity programs and regulatory mechanisms."

Public consultation was an important part of the review. Many individuals and groups participated in the review process, providing the Commission with their views at small round-table discussions, at public meetings, and through written submissions.

Some highlights of the recommendations are:

• broaden responsibility for human rights protection so there would be processes outside the The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code to address human rights concerns
• restructure the responsibilities of the Commissioners
• establish a permanent administrative tribunal to decide human rights cases
• improve the speed and effectiveness of the investigative process
• provide alternatives to investigation such as the early mediated resolution of complaints
• make education equity the legislated responsibility of the Department of Education and post-secondary educational institutions
• implement a three-tiered approach to employment equity based on employer size
• implement pay equity legislation to address discrimination in the setting of women's wages
• provide adequate funding to enable the commission to fulfil its mandate in equity programs, in the investigation of complaints, and in public education

Copies of the report are available from the Saskatoon and Regina offices of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

The case which will determine this issue is Barbara Hall v. Canada Safeway. Barbara Hall complained to the Commission in 1989 that cashiers at Safeway made between 26 to 35 cents less per hour than the food clerks, who stock shelves and arrange displays. Hall claims that the work cashiers do is equivalent in value to the work done by food clerks. Hall also alleged that cashiers have fewer opportunities than food clerks to move into full-time positions.

Saskatchewan does not have pay equity legislation. Because that gap exists, women have come to the Commission with pay equity complaints. Currently, the Commission is interpreting the section of the Code that deals with sex discrimination as being broad enough to include pay equity complaints.

Pay equity is not the same thing as equal pay. When we use the term equal pay we mean that men and women are paid the same for work that is the same or very similar. Saskatchewan does have equal pay legislation. As well, the Code covers discrimination where men and women are not paid equally.

When we use the term pay equity we mean something different. We mean that men and women are paid the same for work that is different, but of equal value. It works like this. Say an employer wants to know if two job classifications in the workplace, one male-dominated and the other female-dominated, are of equal value.

Class action

Barbara Hall is taking the case forward, not only for herself, but for all cashiers in Saskatchewan who have worked for Safeway since 1989. Through Hall, the cashiers have commenced a class action against Safeway. Safeway is arguing that Hall can't join all other Safeway cashiers to her human rights complaint. That dispute has been in the courts since 1994.

The Court of Queen's Bench made a decision on the class action in May 1994. The court said that the equal pay issue could go forward as a class action, but that the opportunities-for-advancement issue could not. Safeway appealed the court's decision on the equal pay issue and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission appealed the court's decision on the opportunities-for-advancement issue. Both sides presented their arguments to the Court of Appeal on November 5, 1996 and are now waiting for a decision to be handed down. Because the issues are complex, Commission lawyer Milton Woodard said a decision is not expected soon.

Until then, the primary issue - whether equal pay for work of equal value is required by the Code - is on hold.