Pauline Kench v. Automodular Assemblies Inc., 2008 HRTO 188

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Pauline Kench

Applicant

-and-

Automodular Assemblies Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: October 24, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 188

Indexed as: Kench v. Automodular Assemblies

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14^th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 Fax (416) 326-2199 / 1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

Reasons for Decision

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on August 11, 2008.

2The facts in the Application are also the subject of an ongoing union grievance. The applicant requested that the Tribunal not defer her Application.

3On September 12, 2008, the Tribunal issued a “Notice of Intent to Defer” pursuant to Rule 14 of its Rules of Procedure to the parties and the applicant’s union, Canadian Auto Workers 1090 (which appears, from the collective agreement filed by the applicant, to be properly named National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 1090), and invited submissions from them within 14 days of the date of the notice.

4On September 17, 2008, the Tribunal granted an extension of time for filing submissions to the parties and the applicant’s union until October 10, 2008. In addition, the Tribunal granted the respondent a two week extension to file its Response.

5On October 3, 2008, the applicant filed a “Request For An Order During Proceedings” seeking deferral of the Application pending the arbitration of her grievance. On October 10, 2008, the respondent filed submissions requesting the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application until the grievance has been settled or adjudicated. In those submissions counsel identified the respondent as Automodular Assemblies Inc. rather than Automodular Corporation. In these circumstances the Tribunal will amend the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the respondent.

6No submissions have been received from the applicant’s union.

7Rule 14.1 provides that the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. Given the submissions before me, the Application will be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance. The respondent is not required to file its Response.

8The parties are directed to the Tribunal’s Rules 14.3 and 14.4 with respect to requesting the Tribunal to proceed with an application which has been deferred.

9I am not seized of this matter.