Anita Sooriyakumaran v. Delta Chelsea Hotel, 2011 HRTO 1913

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Anita Sooriyakumaran Applicant

-and-

Delta Chelsea Hotel Respondent

-and-

Unite Here Local 75 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: October 24, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1913 Indexed as: Sooriyakumaran v. Delta Chelsea Hotel

1This is an Application filed August 26, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour and disability. This Interim Decision deals with a request to intervene by Unite Here Local 75 and directions for the teleconference hearing scheduled for October 27, 2011 in this Application.

2The Application was sent to the respondent and Unite Here Local 75 (the “union”), the union of which the applicant was a member during her employment with the respondent. The union appears to have represented the applicant in a grievance that arose out of the facts that gave rise to this Application and settled.

3The respondent has raised a number of issues, including a request for early dismissal on the ground that the subject matter of the Application has been dealt with by the grievance proceeding (s. 45.1 of the Code) and resulting settlement. A teleconference hearing has been scheduled for October 27, 2011, to deal with this preliminary issue, and notice was sent to the parties and to the union.

4The union, which filed a Request to Intervene, has indicated that it wishes to participate in proceedings to address, amongst other issues, “any evidence led regarding the conduct of the Union or its representatives.” The respondent did not file a response to the Request to Intervene, and the applicant appears to take no position on the intervention. She does indicate, however, in her response of April 28, 2011, that her limited English prevented her from understanding what she was signing in the grievance. She further states that the union did not explain to her the Minutes of Settlement which resolved the grievance, and that she had no representation “on the day of [her] hearing”, presumably a day that involved the grievance process and the settlement. The union clearly has an interest in the Application, and its evidence at the Tribunal teleconference hearing will be useful.

ORDER AND DIRECTIONS

5The union’s Request to Intervene is granted for the purposes of this preliminary matter of whether the allegations in the Application have been dealt with by a grievance proceeding and settlement.

6All parties should be prepared to provide evidence on this issue at the teleconference hearing scheduled for October 27, 2011.