Nolan v. Vale Inco, 2009 HRTO 1633

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Nolan

Applicant

-and-

Vale Inco Limited (CVRD Inco. Ltd.), Mark Cutifani and Murilo Ferreira

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Paul Nolan

Applicant

-and-

United Steelworkers Local 6500, John Fera and Patrick Veinot

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 8, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1633

Indexed as: Nolan v. Vale Inco __________________________________________________________________________

1These are two Applications filed June 24, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Applications relate to the applicant’s dismissal from employment, the parties’ settlement during the grievance process, and the applicant’s assertion that the respondents breached the settlement agreement.

3The Tribunal’s Rules for Transitional Applications are to be interpreted and applied in a way that ensures a fair, just and highly expeditious process for the determination of these applications.

4These Applications involve similar facts and appear to raise similar legal issues. Accordingly, I find, pursuant to Rules 1.1, 4.1 and 4.3 (m), that in order to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process for their resolution, these Applications should proceed together.

5I note that the applicant opposed processing the Applications together on the basis that this would involve releasing confidential information in the Union Application. The applicant asserts that he was represented by the union’s counsel in the grievance arbitration and therefore documents and communications between himself and the lawyer are privileged.

6The union’s counsel noted that it represented the union and not the grievor. It is a well established aspect of labour relations that grievances are brought by union and not individual grievors and therefore the applicant and the union counsel were not in lawyer-client relationship. I am not satisfied that the former relationship between the applicant and the union’s counsel justifies separating these Applications

7The applicant also indicated an intention to call the respondents’ counsel on both Applications. It is premature to determine whether the counsel may be called as a witness, and, in any event, that would not prevent the Applications being heard together.

8The employer respondent raised the existence of a full and final settlement and the Tribunal sought submissions on this issue. The applicant has requested an extension of time to file his submissions. Meanwhile, the union respondents similar raised the issue of a full and final settlement and timeliness.

9Accordingly, the Tribunal will hear all the preliminary issues together. The applicant is directed to file his submission on all the preliminary issues raised by the respondents within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The respondents shall have ten days to file reply submissions if any.

10The Tribunal will schedule a hearing to hear the parties’ oral submissions on the preliminary issues.

11I am not seized of these matters.