minicounsel

Runions v. Brockville (City), 2009 HRTO 1387 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

September 2, 2009

Runions v. Brockville (City), 2009 HRTO 1387

Case Summary

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the employer and the union regarding provisions in a collective agreement. The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing preliminary matters. The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to process the applications separately, finding it fair and expeditious to process them together. The Tribunal also found that the union was a proper respondent to the second application, despite the original complaint naming the fire department, as the corporate entity being complained about was evidently the union.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elise Runions Applicant

-and-

City of Brockville Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Elise Runions Applicant

-and-

Brockville Professional Firefighters Association Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: September 2, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1387 Indexed as: Runions v. Brockville (City)

[1] These Applications were filed in May 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Mediation is scheduled for October 22, 2009. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address concerns raised by the applicant and the respondent Brockville Professional Firefighters Association.

[2] The Tribunal indicated that, upon review of the Applications, as they appeared to relate to similar facts and issues, they would be processed together. The applicant objected to processing the Applications together. The respondents have made no objection. Both Applications set out the same set of facts and issues and in my view, it would be fair, just and expeditious to process both Applications together. The applicant’s request to process the Applications separately is denied.

[3] The respondent Brockville Professional Firefighters Association (“BPFFA”) submits that it is not a proper respondent to Application TR-0391-09, as the original complaint filed with the Commission did not name them.

[4] The applicant filed two identical complaints on June 2, 2008 alleging that the City of Brockville and the BPFFA had negotiated provisions to the collective agreement which disadvantaged the applicant. The party named on Application TR-0300-09 is the City of Brockville, and the complaint also refers to the Director of Human Resources. There is no dispute that this Application refers to the employer, the City of Brockville.

[5] The party named on the complaint underlying the Application TR-0391-09 was the Brockville Fire Department. The President of the BPFFA was also mentioned in that complaint. It is evident from reviewing the two complaints that the corporate entity being complained about was the BPFFA and I find that BPFFA is a respondent in the Application now before the Tribunal.

[6] While the respondent BPFFA has not indicated a desire to participate in mediation, the parties in TR-0300-09 have and the mediation will therefore continue as scheduled on October 22, 2009. The respondent BPFFA is invited to participate. In any event, the preliminary matters raised by the BPFFA in its Response will be deferred until after the mediation.

Dated at Toronto, this 2^nd day of September, 2009.

“Signed by”

Kaye Joachim Alternate Chair