Rawlins v. Molson Canada 2005, 2009 HRTO 2282

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Clifton Rawlins

Applicant

-and-

Molson Canada 2005 and Steve Ropp

Respondents

-and-

Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General & Professional Workers’ Union

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: December 30, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2282

Indexed as: Rawlins v. Molson Canada 2005

1The applicant filed this Application, dated September 21, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging “reprisal or threat of reprisal” in employment. Subsequent to that, the applicant’s union, the Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General & Professional Workers’ Union (“SEIU”) filed a Request to Intervene.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to: (1) deal with the SEIU’s Request to Intervene; and (2) ask the parties and intervenor for submissions on whether the Tribunal has the power (jurisdiction) to decide this Application.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

3The SEIU filed a Request to Intervene on the basis that there is an ongoing grievance concerning the applicant, which is currently before an arbitrator. The SEIU believes the grievance will deal with the issues raised in the Application, and takes the position that the Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the arbitration process. It also asserts that the “alleged reprisal cited by the Applicant does not, in any way, involve a reprisal for having sought to enforce rights under the Human Rights Code.”

4The applicant and the respondents did not take advantage of their opportunity under Rule 11.4 to file a response to the Request to Intervene, and have therefore neither agreed nor objected to the proposed intervention.

5A union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will grant the bargaining agent intervenor status when requested. In this case, I can see no reason, to deny the SEIU’s Request. The Request to Intervene is granted. The extent of the SEIU’s participation in the Tribunal’s proceedings will be determined by the Tribunal at each stage of the proceeding.

JURISDICTION

6It would appear that the applicant had an ongoing dispute with the corporate respondent concerning what are described as his “timesheets.” A week prior to the termination of his employment, the applicant filed a “harassment” grievance concerning at least a portion of this dispute, which he subsequently withdrew. Although no copy of this grievance was provided to the Tribunal, it would appear, from the parties’ description of it, that this grievance did not allege harassment on the basis of any prohibited ground enumerated in the Code.

7Section 8 of the Code, which prohibits reprisals or threat of reprisals, states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.

8In the material filed by the applicant, he does not appear to allege that the respondent’s behaviour was based on his doing any of the following:

• claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
• refusing to infringe the right of another person.

9Moreover, in his Application the applicant has identified no other ground of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated. The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships or dismissals, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code.

10The Tribunal requests written submissions from the applicant to address the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the Application. The applicant should explain how his Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. These submissions should be served on the respondents and the SEIU, and filed by January 15, 2010. The respondents and the SEIU may serve and file written response submissions by January 22, 2010.

11Following receipt of the submissions, or if the applicant does not provide submissions by the date set, the Tribunal may consider whether the Application should be dismissed under Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rule of Procedure, which permits it to dismiss all or part of an application that is outside its jurisdiction.

12The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website or from the Registrar’s office.

13I am not seized of this matter.