Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Christine Greenley
Applicant
- and -
Rouge Valley Health System
Respondent
- and -
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Intervener
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: June 15, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1340 Indexed as: Greeley v. Rouge Valley Health System
1This is an Application filed on December 22, 2009 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider the Request to Intervene made by the applicant's union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (the "union"), and to deal with the issue of whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of another related proceeding.
REQUEST TO INTERVENE
2In this Application the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability.
3The union is the bargaining agent for employees in the applicant's workplace. The Tribunal, therefore, gave notice of the Application to the union.
4The applicant has not opposed the request to intervene. The respondent consents to the request.
5The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The union represents the applicant in ongoing grievances arising out of the facts that give rise to this Application. It has a significant interest in the outcome of the Application, including the remedial orders requested by the applicant. The union's request to intervene is granted. Given the Tribunal's decision to defer this Application, the extent and the nature of the union's participation in the proceeding can be determined when and if the matter is brought back before the Tribunal.
DEFERRAL REQUEST
6In its Response, the respondent asked the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application because the applicant had filed a grievance under the collective agreement which was not yet resolved. The respondent indicated that a Stage 2 meeting was scheduled for April 28, 2010.
7In a Reply filed by the applicant, she opposed the request for deferral. She indicated that she asked the union to file a grievance in November 2008 but the grievance was not filed until April 2009. She understood that there would be a significant delay in dealing with the grievance and so filed the Application. She opposed the request for deferral because she felt that the grievance would not be dealt with in a timely manner.
8On May 12, 2010, the Tribunal sought clarification from the parties about the status of the grievance. The applicant did not respond. A response was received from the respondent, dated May 21, 2010. The respondent advises that the parties attended a Step 2 meeting on April 28, 2010. The meeting was adjourned to May 14, 2010. On that date, the meeting concluded on the basis that the applicant was to submit further documents and she did so on May 18, 2010. As of May 21, 2010, the respondent was "assessing that information". The respondent understands that if the parties were unable to resolve the grievance by June 4, 2010, the union intended to refer the matter to Arbitration.
9The 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). 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.
10In this case, the issues raised in the Application appear to be the same as the issues raised in the grievance. There does not appear to be any particular circumstance which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach.
11In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance.
12Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).
13I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of June, 2010.
"signed by"__________
Brian Cook
Vice-chair