Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
William Asiamah
Applicant
-and-
Olymel S.E.C. / L.P., Michel Boudreault and John Henry He
Respondents
CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE decision
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Asiamah v. Olymel S.E.C. / L.P.
APPEARANCES AND wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
William Asiamah, Applicant ) Cecil Norman, Representative
Olymel S.E.C. / L.P. and )
Michel Boudreault, Respondents ) Stephen Bernardo, Counsel
John Henry He, Respondent ) Not appearing
1This is an Application dated August 13, 2008, under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, age and disability. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on October 10, 2007.
2The purpose of this Case Resolution Conference Decision is to address the issue of whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the substance of the Application already has been appropriately dealt with in a arbitration proceeding before Professor Brian Langille, or otherwise should be dismissed as an abuse of process. While the respondents also raised an issue as to the removal of the personal respondents, it is not necessary to address this issue in light of my determination of the preceding issues.
3The parties filed written submissions in relation to these issues, and also appeared before me to make oral submissions on September 15, 2009.
4The applicant self-identifies as a 62-year-old Black African man from Ghana with disabilities. He commenced employment with the respondent company in 2001 as an industrial mechanic and later became a lead hand. The applicant is represented by a union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, Locals 175 & 633.
5The applicant alleges that, after the personal respondent John Henry He became Maintenance Manager in June 2007, he was subjected to racial discrimination and harassment, which led to his removal from the lead hand position.
6The applicant also alleges that he met with the personal respondent Michel Boudreault, the Human Resources Manager for the respondent company, at various times during the summer of 2007 to request accommodation for his disabilities, which was not provided. The applicant alleges that during these meetings, Mr. Boudreault raised the issue of whether the applicant wanted to seek early retirement. In his complaint, the applicant alleges that the respondents were using his age and disability to try to force him to retire.
7The applicant went off work on medical leave as of August 17, 2007. Mr. Boudreault met with the applicant and his union representative on September 26, 2007. The respondents wrote to the applicant on October 1, 2007, again on October 10, 2007, and again on October 22, 2007, to request that the applicant report for work. Ultimately, the applicant returned to work in January 2008.
8The applicant filed two grievances under the collective agreement. The first grievance is dated August 16, 2007, and alleges “harassment on the job” and “discrimination” and refers to an alleged request by Mr. Boudreault that the applicant either go on layoff with three months pay or take early retirement. The grievance cites Article 2.04 of the collective agreement, which is the No Discrimination clause, and seeks “redress in full” and for the applicant’s record to be made whole. The applicant filed a further grievance dated October 16, 2007, alleging “unjust discipline” in relation to the letter issued to him by Mr. Boudreault on October 10, 2007.
9These grievances proceeded to arbitration before Professor Brian Langille on February 19 and April 1