Amadeo Melendez v. City of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 2132

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amadeo Melendez Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, Charles Pringle, Andrew Boszin, Cindy O’Reilly, Lorraine Burton, Charlotte Monardo and Rosanne Rinella Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: October 22, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2132 Indexed as: Melendez v. Toronto (City)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed on October 14, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin and reprisal in employment.

2In an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 398, the Tribunal determined that the Application would be deferred pending completion of a grievance process. In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal noted that it appeared that there were seven outstanding grievances, at least three of which overlap substantially with the facts and human rights issues set out in the Application (Grievance Nos. C09-02-9410, C08-05-8911, and C09-05-9572). The Tribunal directed the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which outline the procedure by which a deferred application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the other process.

REQUEST TO RE-ACTIVATE

3On March 19, 2010, the applicant delivered to the respondents and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (the “union”), and filed with the Tribunal, a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to re-activate the deferred Application.

4In a Case Assessment Direction, dated June 21, 2010, the Tribunal sought submissions from the respondents and the union in response to the applicant’s Request. In particular, the Tribunal asked the union to provide the Tribunal and the parties with an update of the status of the applicant’s outstanding grievances and, in particular, the status of the three grievances referred to above.

5The union provided submissions dated July 19, 2010 addressing the status of the grievances. With respect to Grievance No. C08-05-8911, the union submitted that its Grievance Committee (“Committee”), at a meeting on May 17, 2010, decided that it would accept a settlement offer made by the respondent, City of Toronto (the “City”). The applicant was informed of the Committee’s decision and advised that the settlement would not be accepted until the applicant had an opportunity to appeal the Committee’s decision. That appeal was scheduled to be heard on August 30, 2010, at a Committee meeting.

6With respect to Grievance No. C09-05-9572, the union submitted that the Committee also decided on May 17, 2010 to accept the City’s settlement offer, subject to an amendment, but that the union had not yet received a response from the City with respect to the amendment. The union also submitted that the applicant had a right to appeal the Committee’s decision on August 30, 2010.

7With respect to Grievance No. C09-02-9410, the union submitted that the Committee considered the City’s Step 2 response and was of the view that there is no basis to proceed further with this grievance. Again, the union submitted that the applicant had the right to appeal the Committee’s decision on August 30, 2010.

8The respondent City, and five of the individual respondents also provided submissions on July 19, 2010 indicating that the grievance process had not concluded as the applicant was appearing before the Committee on August 30, 2010.

DECISION

9It appears that, at the time the applicant made his Request to re-activate his Application, the Request was premature as the grievance process had not yet concluded. However, it is not clear to the Tribunal if the grievance process has since been completed. In particular, the Tribunal is not aware if the union has made a final decision with respect to Grievance No. C09-05-9572 as, at the time of its submissions, the union was waiting for a response from the City concerning an amendment to a settlement offer. The Tribunal is also not aware if the applicant pursued an appeal of the Committee’s decisions, with respect to Grievance Nos. C09-05-9572, C08-05-8911 and C09-02-9410, whether any appeal was heard on August 30, 2010 or what the outcome of any appeal was.

10The information before the Tribunal does not confirm that the grievance process has concluded. The applicant’s Request to reactivate his Application, at this point in time, is dismissed. The Tribunal again directs the applicant’s attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rules 14.3 and 14.4 outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.

11If the grievance process has concluded, the applicant may renew his Request that the Tribunal proceed with his Application, within 60 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

12I am not seized.