HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Derek Crane
Applicant
-and-
Henniges Automotive and Joe Boute
Respondents
-and-
United Steelworkers Local 455
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Crane v. Henniges Automotive
1This Interim Decision deals with the Request to Intervene by the applicant’s union, the United Steelworkers Local 455 (“Local 455”), the applicant’s request to amend his Application and the applicant’s request for production of documents.
2The applicant filed this Application on July 13, 2010, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). He named his employer as the organizational respondent and the then president of Local 455 as the individual respondent to his Application.
REQUEST TO INTERVENE
3The applicant is a member of Local 455, which filed a Request to Intervene (Form 5) on December 3, 2010. It points out that it has an interest in the possible remedy, as well as in defending the actions taken on its behalf by the individual respondent. Indeed, with respect to the latter, counsel for Local 455 subsequently filed a Response to the Application on behalf of the individual respondent.
4The applicant filed a Response to Local 455’s Request, in which he inexplicably opposed deferral of his Application to the arbitration process, even though no grievance had been filed on his behalf and no request to defer had been made. He did not appear to oppose the intervention, although he takes the position that Local 455 has not assisted him with his request for accommodation of his disability.
7The Tribunal indicated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131, that:
5A union or association nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in a bargaining unit it represents when the application alleges discrimination in employment. Absent exceptional circumstances, the applicant’s bargaining agent will be granted intervention status in Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.
8Whether or not Local 455 would be supportive of the applicant in this process, it is clear that it has an interest in the outcome of these proceedings. Accordingly, Local 455 is granted leave to intervene. Should the Application proceed to hearing, the scope of Local 455’s intervention will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.
REQUEST TO AMEND
9The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10), in which he made a request to amend his Application to include the ground of reprisal and to request additional remedies for the losses arising from the alleged reprisals. These amendments are contained in the first two paragraphs under the heading “Submission to Amend the Applicant’s Remedy Sought to Include Mental Anguish, Reprisal, Lost Wages, Lost Pension & Lost Benefits.” The remaining paragraphs mostly deal with the change in the applicant’s treatment regime as a result of these alleged reprisals.
10The employer respondent filed a Response to the Request for Order (Form 11) in which it denied the new allegations, but otherwise took no position on the propriety of the amendments. No Form 11 was filed by the individual respondent and Local 455 took no position.
11The Tribunal is prepared to grant the applicant’s request to amend in view of the small number of additional facts involved and the apparent lack of prejudice to the respondents. Accordingly, this Application is amended to include the ground of reprisal and the additional particulars set out in the “Submission to Amend the Applicant’s Remedy Sought to Include Mental Anguish, Reprisal, Lost Wages, Lost Pension & Lost Benefits.”
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
12The applicant has made a broad request for the production of documents for the period from 2004-2011, largely from the employer respondent, but also some from Local 455. In it in the Response to the Request, the employer respondent opposes the request as overly broad, but indicates that it is in the process of reviewing the request and will advise the applicant which ones it is willing to produce. It also made a request for the production of the applicant’s medical records. Neither Local 455 nor the individual respondent filed a response to this request.
13The parties are encouraged to voluntarily negotiate the production of relevant documents. However, at this time it is premature for the Tribunal to issue such an order as this matter has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. Once the Notice of Hearing is sent to the parties, it will trigger certain disclosure and production requirements pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. These deadlines will be clearly set out in the Notice of Hearing.
14If, after receiving the respective disclosure pursuant to the Rules, one or more of the parties believe that production is incomplete, they may seek production at that stage.
ORDERS
15In sum, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
Local 455 is granted leave to intervene;
the applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted as set out above; and
both the applicant’s and respondent’s production requests are denied as premature.
16I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of May, 2011.
”signed by”______________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair