HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Erica Superville
Applicant
-and-
Extendicare Canada Inc. and Sandy Hall
Respondents
Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1394
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Superville v. Extendicare Canada
1In an earlier Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) and Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1811, the Tribunal noted that there appeared to be outstanding grievances possibly covering the same allegations as gave rise to the Application and asked the parties and intervenor for submissions on deferral.
2Following a review of the submissions, it would appear that the applicant and the intervenor are of the opinion that there are three outstanding grievances, but that they are not being actively pursued. The intervenor states that it is unable at this time to ascertain the precise status of the applicant’s three grievances, but with respect to the grievance, dated January 8, 2010, it was able to report:
… the Union did attempt to bring the grievance forward at mediation in February 2011, however, the Employer refused to discuss the matter, both before and at mediation, insisting that the grievance had been abandoned. … As the Applicant has not expressed any desire to continue to advance the grievance forward in the face of the Employer’s objections as to the alleged abandonment, the Union has taken no further steps.
3It is difficult to ascertain the applicant’s precise position from her submissions, but the gist appears to be that while she does not believe her grievances have been abandoned, she does not have any faith in the intervenor to pursue them in a fair manner. For their part, in their Amended Response, the respondents take the position that the grievances have been abandoned and, therefore, deemed withdrawn as per the Collective Agreement.
4Among the reasons for deferring an application to a grievance process is to ensure that respondents are not required to simultaneously defend themselves in two proceedings, to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of adjudicative resources, and to prevent overlapping and possibly contradictory findings of fact and/or law.
5None of these appear to be a concern as it would appear that the grievances are not being advanced at this time. Should this change, the parties can make a request to the Tribunal via the appropriate procedure. However, at this time, the Tribunal will not defer to the grievance process. The Application will proceed.
6I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of November, 2011.
”signed by”__________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair