Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Guy Damude
Applicant
-and-
Pilkington Glass of Canada and Tracy Ellinger
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Damude v. Pilkington Glass of Canada
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Pilkington Glass of Canada and ) Geneviève Debané, Counsel
Tracy Ellinger, Respondents )
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to request written submissions from the applicant and his union on whether the Tribunal should reverse its earlier Interim Decision that declined to order the deferral of the Application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.
2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on January 29, 2010, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his disability.
3In section 14 of the Application, the applicant acknowledged that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress, but did not request that the Tribunal defer his Application until the grievance proceeding is completed. He attached two grievances from December 2009 to his Application.
4On May 18, 2010, the Tribunal's Registrar sent the parties and the applicant's union (United Steelworkers Local 252G) a letter, which requested written submissions on the issue of deferral.
5The respondents filed submissions on May 31, 2010, which requested that the Tribunal defer the Application because the grievances have reached step 4 of the grievance process, and the issues set out in the Application and the grievances are identical.
6The union filed submissions on June 24, 2010, which opposed the deferral of the Application on the basis that it informed the corporate respondent on June 14 that it was putting the grievances in abeyance until the applicant's case has been heard by this Tribunal. The union attached a copy of the letter that it sent to the corporate respondent.
7On July 7, 2010, The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1482, which decided not to order the deferral of the Application because the applicant's grievances were being held in abeyance.
8On July 29, 2010, the respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Interim Decision because, among other things, shortly after the Tribunal issued its Interim Decision, the applicant's grievances were referred to arbitration, the employer and the union jointly requested that a specific arbitrator hear the matter, and a hearing is in the process of being scheduled.
9Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the decision [emphasis added]. The Tribunal's decision at issue was an interim, not a final, decision. As such, the respondents filed the wrong form with the Tribunal. In my view, the respondents should have filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10).
10In the circumstances, I will exercise my authority pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to vary the application of the Tribunal's Rules, and accept and treat the Request for Reconsideration as a Request for an Order During Proceedings.
11The applicant and his union are directed to file written submissions, if any, in response to the Request by no later than 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of September, 2010.
”signed by”____________
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair