Joseph Perpich v. South Essex Community Council and Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4523, 2009 HRTO 1774

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joseph Perpich

Applicant

-and-

South Essex Community Council and Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4523

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: October 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1774

Indexed as: Perpich v. South Essex Community Council

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”), which names the applicant’s employer, South Essex Community Council (the “employer”) and his bargaining agent, Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4523 (the “Union”), as respondents. In an Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 469, the Tribunal ordered that the Application would be deferred, pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration under the relevant collective agreement. Following that Interim Decision, the Union wrote to the Tribunal to advise that there was an error in its name. This is corrected as set out in the style of cause.

2On August 25, 2009, the grievance was withdrawn by the Union, following a settlement with the employer which led to a letter of understanding being placed in the collective agreement.

3The applicant does not believe this resolves the issues he raised and submits that the respondents continue to violate the Code. He asks that the matter proceed, pursuant to Rule 14.4. The employer and Union submit that the matter should not proceed, relying upon s. 45.1 of the Code and various other arguments. All parties have agreed to mediation.

4In all the circumstances, I am of the view that the most fair, just and expeditious manner of proceeding is to order that the Application proceed pursuant to Rule 14.4 and request that the Registrar schedule mediation. In view of the ongoing dispute about whether the respondents have violated the Code, the applicant should be permitted to proceed with the Application. This does not affect the respondents’ ability to request dismissal on the grounds they have argued. I note, given the respondents’ requests to have the issues they raised determined in writing, that a decision to dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 could only be made following oral submissions: see s. 43(2) of the Code and Rule 22.2.

5I am not seized.