Kohlhammer v. Shopmen’s Local Union No. 834 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, 2010 HRTO 2262

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 17, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2262

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.

2The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision on November 1, 2010, 2010 HRTO 2143, which directed the applicant to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal written submissions explaining why he believes that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the Application as it relates to the organizational respondent (the “Union”) and why he believes the personal respondent is a proper party to the Application. The applicant filed written submissions with the Tribunal on November 8, 2010.

3This Interim Decision addresses the question as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the Application as it relates to the Union.

4In my view, the Application against the Union does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code which prohibits discrimination in employment on the specific grounds enumerated in the Code. Accordingly, 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 there are no allegations of discrimination against the Union. Therefore, there is no basis upon which it can be said that the Union infringed the Code. As a result, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application as it relates to the Union.

5The Tribunal therefore orders that the Union be removed as a respondent to the Application. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.

6I am not seized of this matter.