Kathyrn Lichty v. Waterloo Region Grand River Transit, 2011 HRTO 2145

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kathyrn Lichty Applicant

-and-

Waterloo Region Grand River Transit Respondent

-and-

CAW Local 4304 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: November 29, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2145 Indexed as: Lichty v. Waterloo Region Grand River Transit

1The hearing in this file is scheduled for December 1, 2011.

2An Interim Decision was issued by the Tribunal on November 9, 2011 (“the November Interim Decision”). At the time, the CAW Local 4304 (“the union”) was not named as an intervenor because it had not filed a Request to Intervene although it had been named as an affected party. Amongst other issues addressed in the November Interim Decision, the Tribunal directed the union to:

a) email the parties and the Tribunal to advise whether was planning on attending the hearing as an affected party; and

b) if the union intends to attend the hearing as an affected party, to file a Request to Intervene and any documentation or facts upon which it intends to rely.

3The parties were given three days from the receipt of the union’s Request to Intervene, if filed, to file a Response to the Request to Intervene.

4Since the issuance of the November Interim Decision, the union has emailed the Tribunal, copying the parties confirming the union’s intention to attend the hearing. The union also filed a Request to Intervene. Neither party has filed a Response to the Request to Intervene.

5The Tribunal has found on numerous occasions that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of one of its bargaining units and that, absent exceptional circumstances, it will be granted intervention status when it so requests it. See, for example, Bishop v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1998.

6In this case, since one of the issues at the hearing will be collective agreement language negotiated between the respondent and the union and its application to the applicant’s situation, I find that the union does have an interest in this Application. Accordingly, the Request to Intervene is granted and the style of cause is amended.

7If the parties are able to do so before December 1, 2011, they are directed to provide a copy of their productions, by email, to the union. If the parties are not able to do this before December 1, 2011, then they are directed to bring a copy of their productions to the hearing on December 1, 2011. If the union requires some time to review that material before the hearing starts on December 1, 2011, it can make that request at the beginning of the hearing.

Order

8The Tribunal orders that:

a) the union is added as an intervenor to the Application;

b) if the parties are able to do so before December 1, 2011, they are directed to provide a copy of their productions, by email, to the union; if they are not able to do so before December 1, they are directed to bring a copy of their productions to the hearing on December 1, 2011.