Ermine Shaw v. United Steelworkers, 2011 HRTO 287

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ermine Shaw

Applicant

-and-

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers) Local 8694, Terry Bea and Veronica Morgan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 10, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 287

Indexed as: Shaw v. United Steelworkers

1The applicant filed this Application on August 5, 2010, alleging discrimination in membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability and age contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant also filed a duty of fair representation complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) against her union, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers) Local 8694. This purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the OLRB complaint.

2The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the Application pending the outcome of the OLRB complaint in its Response. When the Tribunal delivered the Response to the applicant, it specifically referred to the respondents’ deferral request and asked the applicant to provide submissions in response to the request by February 1, 2011. The applicant did not make any submissions and the time for so doing has now passed.

3The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

4In the instant case, there is significant overlap between the allegations in the Application and the allegations in the OLRB complaint. The respondents note that a “consultation” before the OLRB is scheduled for February 10, 2011.

5In light of the advanced stage of the OLRB proceeding, the overlap between the proceedings and the applicant’s failure to challenge the deferral request, the Tribunal is of the view that deferral to the OLRB process is appropriate. The Application will be deferred pending completion of the OLRB process.

6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process. The employer’s Request to Intervene will be dealt with by the Tribunal should the Application be brought back on.

7I am not seized of this matter.