Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Gregory Nelson
Applicant
-and-
Walker Exhausts: A Division of Tenneco Canada Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Date: June 11, 2010
Citation: 2010 HRTO 1330
Indexed as: Nelson v. Walker Exhausts
[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on February 24, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of “reprisal or threat of reprisal” and “association with a person identified by a ground identified above”, beside which the applicant handwrote “union association/ conection” [sic].
[2] On May 5, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) to the applicant stating that it did not appear that the Application alleged a ground or area of discrimination under the Code or explain how he was harassed or discriminated against on the basis of association with a person identified by a ground under the Code. The Tribunal directed the applicant to filed submissions addressing these issues by June 4, 2010. The applicant did not file any submissions and the time for doing so has now passed.
[3] The applicant alleges that he worked for the respondent until 2006 when he left to pursue employment in another province. While employed by the respondent, he was also a union steward and was involved in the investigation of grievances and wrongdoings which information, he submits, is contained in his personnel file. In August 2009 he applied to work for the respondent again. He was hired the day after he submitted his resumé and worked one shift. At the beginning of his second shift, he was removed from the respondent’s premises, told “apparently you fell through the cracks”, and not permitted to return to work. Despite contacting various management members, he has not been told by the respondent why he is not permitted to work and he concludes it is because of his involvement with the union during his previous employment.
[4] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. In employment, those grounds are race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status and disability.
[5] Section 8 of the Code provides as follows:
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 for so doing.
[6] The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based upon the Code which, among other things, prohibits discrimination and harassment with respect to employment on the basis of the grounds set out in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate claims of unfairness unless affected by a ground in the Code.
[7] On its face, the Application does not allege any facts within the scope of section 8 as against the respondent. The applicant does not allege that he attempted to claim or enforce his rights under the Code, that he instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or that he refused to infringe the right of another person under the Code. Further, he does not appear to make any allegations against the respondent on the basis of “association with a person identified by a ground listed above”. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Application and it is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of June, 2010.
“Signed By”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair