Kohlhammer v. Shopmen’s Local Union No. 834 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, 2010 HRTO 2143

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Siegfried Kohlhammer

Applicant

-and-

Shopmen’s Local Union No. 834 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers and Joan Lilley

Respondents

interim decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: November 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2143

Indexed as: Kohlhammer v. Shopmen’s Local Union No. 834 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers

1This Application, filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended, alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and age. It also raises reprisal and threat of reprisal.

Jurisdiction

2This Interim Decision addresses whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Application (power to decide) as it relates to the organizational respondent (the “Union”). It also addresses whether the personal respondent is a proper party to the Application.

3The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code which prohibits discrimination in employment on the specific grounds enumerated in the Code. It follows, therefore, that the Tribunal can only deal with applications in the area of employment where there are allegations of discrimination in employment on the basis of an enumerated ground. In this Application, while the applicant makes a number of allegations not one is raised against the Union. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis upon which it can be said that the Union infringed the Code. As a result, there is a real question as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the Application as it relates to the Union.

Is the Personal Respondent a Proper Respondent to the Application?

4Although the Application alleges discrimination in employment the applicant has failed to name as a respondent the corporation that employed him. He has named the personal respondent, a corporate vice-president, as a respondent. The applicant has put forward in his Application some vague allegations of mistreatment; however, there does not appear to be anything in the Application linking that mistreatment to the personal respondent. That is to say, there are no allegations that, if proven true, could establish that the personal respondent discriminated against the applicant. The Tribunal has held that in order for a named respondent to be a proper party to the proceeding, among other things, there must be allegations against the respondent, which if true, could lead to a finding that the respondent violated the Code: Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513 at para. 12; Tyrell v. Lake Promenade Apartments, 2010 HRTO 1680.

Direction

5By no later than November 10, 2010 the applicant shall deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal written submissions explaining why he believes that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with this Application as it relates to the Union and why he believes the personal respondent is a proper party to the Application. If the applicant fails to make submissions on these issues as directed, the Tribunal will determine the issues based on the materials filed or it may dismiss the Application as abandoned.

6The respondents are not required to make submissions on these issues unless and until directed to do so by the Tribunal.

7I am not seized of this matter.