Meenu Bhagat v. Workers United Ontario Council, 2011 HRTO 1217

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Meenu Bhagat Applicant

-and-

Workers United Ontario Council Respondent

-and-

Sodexo Canada Ltd. Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: June 24, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1217 Indexed as: Bhagat v. Workers United Ontario Council

1This is an Application filed on July 27, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2The Application concerns a failure to award the applicant a temporary position. It appears that at the time of the events, the respondent was her bargaining agent. However, since then, both her employer (a food services contractor) and the respondent have left the workplace and there is now a different employer and bargaining agent. As remedy, the applicant requests monetary compensation as well as an order that she be placed in the position of temporary full time dietary aide.

3By Case Assessment Direction dated March 28, 2011, I directed that the Application be delivered to the applicant’s previous and current employer, as well as her current union, as it appeared that the Application may affect their interests. I directed the respondent to provide contact information for these affected parties. The respondent provided contact information for the applicant’s previous employer, with whom it had a collective bargaining relationship. However, it states that as it is no longer in the workplace, it does not have contact information for the others. It stated that the applicant would be in a better position to supply this information.

4The applicant has indicated that she does not wish to involve her current employer and current union, and did not provide their contact information.

5By Case Assessment Direction dated April 18, 2011, I stated that if the applicant wishes to pursue the remedy of being placed in the position she seeks, she must provide contact information for her current employer and current union, and that if she did not, the Tribunal will deem that she has withdrawn this remedial request.

6The applicant has not responded to the Case Assessment Direction. The Tribunal therefore strikes from the Application the remedial request that the applicant be placed in the position of temporary full time dietary aide.

7The applicant’s former employer, Sodexo Canada Ltd., has filed a Request to Intervene. No party has responded to the Request and the time for doing so has elapsed. As it appears that the proposed intervenor’s interests may be affected by this Application, the Tribunal grants the Request to Intervene. The nature and extent of its participation at the hearing will be determined by the Vice-chair assigned to hear the matter.

8This matter will be scheduled for a one-day hearing.

9I am not seized of this matter.