Harvia Gray v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology and Arthur Burke, 2008 HRTO 406

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Harvia Gray Applicant

-and-

Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology and Arthur Burke Respondents

-and-

Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 560 Intervener

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: December 17, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 406 Indexed as: Gray v. Seneca College

1This is an Application filed September 10, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, sex, and reprisal.

2In her Application the applicant indicates that the facts of this Application are part of another proceeding that is still in progress, namely, a grievance filed by her bargaining agent, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 560 ("OPSEU").

3The respondents filed a joint Response with a request to defer the Application confirming that the facts of the Application are part of an ongoing grievance which is currently before a board of arbitration. The arbitration was scheduled to commence November 18, 2008 and to continue on May 26 and 27, 2009.

4The respondent has filed brief submissions on the deferral issue, suggesting that the applicant did not initially raise allegations of discrimination at the time of the filing of her grievance. However, the respondents also indicate that allegations of discrimination were subsequently raised at a grievance meeting held December 18, 2007 and that the applicant is required to furnish further particulars of her discrimination allegations on or before the date of the commencement of the arbitration.

5OPSEU has filed a request to intervene in this Application. Like the submissions filed by the respondents, the submissions filed by OPSEU indicate that the issues in the grievance directly relate to the issues in the Application before this Tribunal. OPSEU requests an opportunity to address the jurisdiction and choice of forum which will be central to the deferral issue. The applicant also identified OPSEU as an organization which may be affected by her Application. In responding to the request to defer, the applicant may raise issues which only her bargaining agent can fully address. In the circumstances, it appears appropriate to grant the request for intervention by OPSEU and to allow it to participate in the request to defer.

6Accordingly the Tribunal will deal with the respondent's request to defer as a preliminary matter. Given the upcoming holiday period I have set time for filing materials in January 2009. The respondents shall deliver to the other parties and file with the Tribunal any further material they wish to rely on in support of the request by January 2, 2009. OPSEU shall deliver to the other parties and file with the Tribunal any material it wishes to rely on within seven days of delivery of the respondent's material. The applicant shall deliver to the other parties file with the Tribunal any material she wishes to rely on in response within seven days of the filing of OPSEU's material. The respondents and OPSEU shall have a further five days to deliver and file any reply to the applicant's material.

7I am not seized of this matter.