Parent v. Johnson Controls, 2009 HRTO 353

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Janice Parent

Applicant

-and-

Johnson Controls LP

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: March 26, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 353

Indexed as: Parent v. Johnson Controls

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on December 16, 2008. The respondent filed its Response on February 3, 2009. The Response contains a request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of a grievance and arbitration process. Written arguments were provided in support of this request for deferral.

2On March 9, 2009 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to request submissions on whether the Tribunal should defer the Application until the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process. The applicant provided submissions on March 19, 2009.

3The respondent states that the applicant filed a grievance on December 11, 2008 in respect of the termination of her short term disability benefits upon her layoff. The respondent states that this is the factual basis of the applicant’s Application to the Tribunal. This grievance is still continuing. The respondent argues that the provisions of the collective agreement between the parties and the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1 Sched. A. as amended provide for a process that has the ability to address human rights issues and as this process is currently underway, the Tribunal should defer its proceedings.

4The applicant makes one argument in response; that the grievance procedure has been delayed twice by the respondent without a date for the next step in the grievance process being established. The applicant’s concern is clearly that the grievance process has been slow to deal with her dispute with the respondent.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The purpose of deferring an application is to ensure that proceedings dealing with some or all of the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Given this purpose, the Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

6The Tribunal, having considered the circumstances of this case, orders the deferral of the applicant’s Application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process. It appears that the applicant’s grievance and Application are based on the same facts and issues. Grievance and arbitration processes routinely deal with human rights issues. And while the applicant may be frustrated by the speed at which her grievance is progressing, this is insufficient reason to proceed with her Application at this time, a step that would likely lead to concurrent proceedings.

7The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the grievance has been concluded.

5I am not seized of this matter.