Koroll v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), 2009 HRTO 942

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Douglas Koroll Applicant

-and-

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and Automodular Corporation Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Douglas Koroll Applicant

-and-

Luisa Cecchia and Automodular Corporation Respondents

-and-

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: June 30, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 942 Indexed as: Koroll v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada)

1These are Applications filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"), which will be scheduled together for hearing. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove Niki Lundquist as a personal respondent in one file, and to consider a Request to Intervene filed by National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) (the "union") in the other file.

FILE NUMBER 2009-00609-I

2The union filed a Response on behalf of Niki Lundquist and itself, urging that the Application against Ms. Lundquist be dismissed because she was merely acting in her capacity as its Associate Counsel when she authored a letter to which the applicant refers in his Application.

3Subsequent to the union's Response, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to withdraw the Application against Ms. Lundquist only. The corporate respondent has not objected to the Request and in the circumstances, I see no reason to deny it.

4Niki Lundquist is removed as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

FILE NUMBER 2009-00490-I

5In this Application, the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the ground of creed because the employer did not allow him to participate in its attendance bonus programme despite the applicant's position that his attendance with a modified work schedule qualified him to participate. The applicant's work schedule was modified to accommodate the applicant's religious beliefs.

6The union is the collective bargaining agent for employees in the applicant's workplace. The Tribunal gave notice of the Application to the union which then filed a Request to Intervene. While the respondents made no submissions in respect of the union's Request to Intervene, the applicant opposed it.

7The applicant takes the position that it would be inappropriate for the union to intervene given that it did not address this issue when it knew the applicant was being excluded by the employer and given that it is a respondent in his other Application. He states that he has no confidence in the union's loyalty or competence.

8The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure in support of the Application against the employer. It appears from the Request and from the applicant's Response to the Request that while the union did not become involved directly in the applicant's objection to his exclusion from the programme, it assisted the applicant in obtaining a modified work schedule, and has a detailed appreciation of the workplace and the operation of the attendance bonus programme. The fact that it is a respondent in the other related Application supports its Request to Intervene in this file.

9The Tribunal is satisfied that the union has an interest in the issues raised by the Application. The Request to Intervene is granted. The extent and nature of the union's participation at the hearing will be determined by the Vice-chair assigned to hear the Application.

10I am not seized.