Leonardo G. Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre, 2008 HRTO 245

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leonardo G. Galuego

Applicant

-and-

Kensington Health Centre

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4599

Intervener

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: November 7, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 245

Indexed as: Galuego v. Kensington Health Centre

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2C7 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

1This is an Application filed August 14, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this interim decision is to consider the Request to Intervene made by the applicant’s union, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4599 (the “union”), and to deal with the issue of whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of another related proceeding.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

2In this Application, the applicant alleges discrimination in employment, on the ground of gender. He alleges that he has been harassed by a co-worker, and that events ensuing from the harassment led to the termination of his employment. The union is the bargaining agent for employees in the applicant’s workplace. The Tribunal, therefore, gave notice of the Application to the union.

3The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In his Reply the applicant addressed the Request to Intervene, neither agreeing nor objecting to the proposed intervention. The respondent did not make submissions on this issue and the deadline for doing so has now passed.

4The union represents the applicant in the ongoing grievances arising out of the facts that give rise to this Application. It has a significant interest in the outcome of the Application, including the remedial orders requested by the applicant. The union’s request to intervene is granted. Given the Tribunal’s decision to defer this Application, the extent and the nature of the union’s participation in the proceeding can be determined when and if the matter is brought back before the Tribunal.

DEFERRAL REQUEST

5The union has filed grievances alleging harassment and discrimination and termination of employment without just cause. The termination grievance expressly alleges that the employer violated the collective agreement as well as the Code. The grievances have been referred to arbitration.

6The applicant objects to deferral of his Application, submitting that deferral would be unjust and not acceptable.

7The 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 (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. The facts and issues raised by this Application are part of grievance processes that are still in progress. The applicant did not identify any particular circumstance which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach.

8In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of both grievances.

9Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

10I am not seized of this matter.