Ruppel v. Metro Ontario Inc., 2011 HRTO 1752

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lacey Ruppel

Applicant

-and-

Metro Ontario Inc. and Gary Morrow

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: September 23, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1752

Indexed as: Ruppel v. Metro Ontario Inc.

1This Application, filed on July 27, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. The Application alleges that the personal respondent sexually harassed the applicant. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of a grievance proceeding.

2The applicant is a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 175 & 633 (the "Union"). The Application identifies that there is a grievance proceeding that is in progress that addresses the facts of the Application. A copy of a grievance filed by the applicant alleging sexual harassment and seeking two weeks pay as a remedy was provided along with the Application.

3On August 16, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer indicating that it might be appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of this grievance. The Notice invited the parties and the Union to make submissions as to whether the Application should or should not be deferred.

4On September 13, 2011 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to state that the grievance was not resolved satisfactorily. She stated that she was not satisfied with the respondent's investigation of her allegations, that she was not informed by the Union that she could appeal the respondent's "decision" and that the Union had not followed up on her request for two weeks compensation. The applicant asked that the Tribunal continue to process her Application.

5On September 15, 2010 the corporate respondent wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the grievance procedure. The corporate respondent provided two letters along with its submissions. One was a letter dated July 28, 2011 from the corporate respondent to the Union stating that the corporate respondent and Union had jointly investigated the applicant's allegations, that the personal respondent had apologized to the applicant for any behaviours that the applicant may have found inappropriate and that the corporate respondent was requesting that the Union consider the grievance to be resolved. The second letter dated August 3, 2011 was from the Union to the corporate respondent stating that the grievance was resolved on a without prejudice basis as per the corporate respondent's letter of July 28, 2011.

6The corporate respondent submits that while it is of the view that the grievance was resolved the applicant's September 13, 2011 submissions to the Tribunal suggest that the applicant has a different view and that it therefore appears that the grievance may still be alive. Consequently the corporate respondent asks that the Application be deferred until the applicant, the Union and the respondents are all satisfied that the grievance has been resolved or the grievance process is completed.

7The Tribunal has not received submissions from the Union.

DECISION

8Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal's authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

9The information before me is that the corporate respondent and the Union are of the view that the grievance is resolved. It is true that the applicant's September 13, 2011 submissions express concerns about her grievance and the apparent outcome however, there is no indication that the grievance is ongoing or that the applicant is seeking to continue with the grievance process. Her stated interest is to proceed with her Application.

10Given these circumstances the Tribunal will not defer the Application at the present time and will proceed to process the applicant's Application.

11The corporate respondent indicated in its submissions that its correct corporate name is Metro Ontario Inc. not Food Basics as was identified by the applicant. The style of cause is amended accordingly.

12I am not seized of this matter.