Clifton Rawlins v. Molson Canada 2005, 2010 HRTO 1678

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

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: August 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1678

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. In a previous Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 2282, I granted his bargaining unit, the SEIU, status as an intervenor. I also directed the applicant to provide submissions with respect to why his allegations are within the power (jurisdiction) of the Tribunal to decide.

2The applicant filed submissions in response to the jurisdictional issue and asked the Tribunal to reconsider its Interim Decision on intervention. Both the respondents and the SEIU filed submissions in opposition to the applicant’s position.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

3Rule 26.1 provides that a party "may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal” [emphasis added]. A decision to grant intervenor status is not a “final” decision of the Tribunal and, thus, the reconsideration provisions are inapplicable to this situation.

JURISDICTION

4It would appear from the Application that the applicant had an ongoing dispute with the corporate respondent concerning what are described as his “timesheets.” The applicant is of the view that this behaviour constitutes “harassment.” A week prior to the termination of his employment the applicant filed what he describes as a “harassment” grievance.

5The applicant did not allege harassment on the basis of any prohibited ground enumerated in the Code in this grievance. Likewise, the applicant does not allege in either his Application or his submissions to the Tribunal that he was harassed because of any ground listed in the Code. The Code does not prohibit all forms of unfairness or harassment. There must be a nexus between the allegation of unfairness and/or harassment and a ground under the Code. For that reason, the applicant’s harassment grievance cannot properly be seen as claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

6Section 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.

7The applicant cannot claim the protection of the reprisal section of the Code because he was not:

• 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.

8Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. The Application is dismissed.