Gungor v. Canadian Auto Workers Local 88, 2009 HRTO 1611

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Yavuz Gungor

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Auto Workers Local 88

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 6, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1611

Indexed as: Gungor v. Canadian Auto Workers Local 88

1This is an Application filed December 12, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with a request for early dismissal under section 45.1.

2The applicant self-identifies as a person with a disability. In April 2005, he filed complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Cami Automotive (the “Employer”) and Canadian Auto Workers Local 88, the respondent (the “Union”) with respect to an alleged failure to accommodate his disability. The complaint against the Union relates to its failure to pursue his posting grievance to arbitration. The applicant seeks unspecified financial compensation for losses caused by the Union.

3The applicant entered into confidential minutes of settlement with the Employer and signed a release. The Union respondent asserts that as a result of the settlement, the remedies originally sought in the application are moot.

4It appears to the Tribunal that there is also an issue whether the original complaint as framed by the applicant, which forms the subject matter of the Application, sets out facts which could give rise to a finding that the respondent breached the applicant’s rights. The Tribunal has stated a failure to pursue a grievance, in and of itself, does not make a Union party to the employer’s discrimination: Traversy v Mississauga Professional Firefighters’ Association, 2009 HRTO 996; Khaiter v. York University Faculty Association, 2008 HRTO 241 at para 42 and 43; Baylet v. Universal Workers Union, 2009 HRTO 700 at para 17.

5The Tribunal will convene a half-day Case Resolution conference to hear the above issues.