Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Susan Williams Applicant
- and -
United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 67 Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie Date: August 8, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1473 Indexed as: Williams v. United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 67
APPEARANCES
Susan Williams, Applicant (Self-represented)
United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 67, Respondent (Jessie Nyman, Counsel)
1Susan Williams filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and sex. In her Application she also alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, but made no allegations relating to disability. She self-identifies as an Aboriginal person.
2The applicant is an apprentice plumber. The United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 67 is a trade union and represents plumbers and other trades in the Hamilton and Niagara regions. The applicant signed a Contract of Apprenticeship with the respondent in March of 2005. The respondent was not her employer but did refer the apprentices to employers through a hiring hall. The respondent revoked the apprenticeship agreement with the applicant on July 14, 2010.
3The respondent filed a Request for a Summary Hearing. In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued on March 17, 2011, the Tribunal granted the Request. A summary hearing was held on July 27, 2011 by teleconference.
4The CAD directed that the applicant explain how she can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she experienced discrimination on the alleged grounds. It also directed that she describe the evidence she would use to establish her allegations. She was also directed to explain how she would rebut the alleged non-discriminatory basis for the termination of the apprenticeship agreement. She was also directed to respond to the objection of the respondent to the timeliness of some of her allegations.
5At the summary hearing, the applicant withdrew her allegations relating to her lay-offs by third party employers. The respondent had raised objections to the timeliness of some of those allegations. In light of the withdrawal, I do not need to address that objection.
6The regulations under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act RSO 1990, c T.17 set out mandatory classroom training and practical experience for apprentices in order to qualify for a Certificate of Qualification. The applicant did not attend the required classroom training. The respondent states that the applicant had completed 60 hours of the 360 hours of required classroom training. The applicant stated that the reason she missed taking trade school training was because she could not afford it, based on the hours of work she was receiving. The applicant also failed to attend mandatory Rigging and Hoisting classes. The applicant stated that no one told her about these classes. The applicant also received poor evaluations of her work, with only one positive evaluation. She stated that the respondent never drew any negative evaluations to her attention and she did not sign-off on them. She argued that the positive evaluation she received should have been given more weight, since she had worked for that employer many times.
7The applicant alleged that she was denied benefits and this was a direct result of her aboriginal status and gender. At the hearing, the respondent advised that eligibility for benefits was based on hours worked in a month and that the applicant did not meet the threshold. The applicant accepted this explanation.
8During the teleconference hearing the applicant stated that the revocation of her apprenticeship was unfair and that she felt it had been revoked because she was an aboriginal woman. When asked what evidence she would be providing at a hearing to demonstrate this, she said it was “just the way I feel about it”.
Analysis and Decision
9For the reasons which follow I dismiss the Application.
10In order to show a reasonable prospect of success, an applicant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, a link between what is claimed to be a disadvantage and the grounds relied upon. If the applicant is unable to establish some reasonable basis to believe that such a link or links could be made at a hearing, the application must be dismissed.
11In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal addressed the issue of evidence in a summary hearing. The Tribunal recognized that information about the reasons for action taken by a respondent are largely within its sole knowledge. It further noted that evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process or the cross-examination of the people involved. In the absence of full disclosure, the tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. Where there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the summary hearing.
12It is not enough for an applicant to simply state that the evidence will show discrimination. An applicant must be able to articulate how that evidence will show that there was discrimination. During the teleconference hearing, the applicant did not provide any further particulars that would establish a link between the termination of the apprenticeship agreement and a ground of discrimination.
13Accordingly, the Application must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of August, 2011.
”signed by”______
Ian R. Mackenzie Vice-chair