La v. Garda Security Screening, 2011 HRTO 301

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Aubin La

Applicant

-and-

Garda Security Screening Inc. and Canadian Airport Workers Union

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 301

Indexed as: La v. Garda Security Screening

1The applicant has requested that his Application be deferred pending his "discussions" with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) concerning whether it is prepared to assume jurisdiction over the allegations contained within the Application. Neither respondent has made submissions on the issue of deferral, and the time for doing so has now passed.

2The applicant advises that he initially filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission ("CHRC"), but that it wrote back to him and told him that the subject matter of his complaint was within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. He then filed his Application with this Tribunal

3In its Response to this Application, the Canadian Airport Workers Union (the "union") requests that it be dismissed on the basis that the employment relationship at issue in the Application is within exclusive federal jurisdiction. The union relies on a decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board ("CIRB") certifying the union as the bargaining agent for a group of employees at Garda Security Screening Inc. ("Garda").

4This CIRB decision appears to state that the particular employment relationship at issue in this Application is within exclusive federal jurisdiction. This conclusion is apparently echoed in a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board that both the applicant and union rely on in their respective submissions on jurisdiction.

5This Tribunal has previously been asked to determine whether Garda was a federally or provincially regulated employer. Rather than deciding this matter, in an Interim Decision, Hutchinson v. Garda Canada Security, 2010 HRTO 169, it deferred the Application pending the completion of Mr. Hutchinson's complaint to the CHRC.

6Given the uncertainty caused by the CHRC's initial refusal to assume jurisdiction over this matter, it is appropriate to defer this matter pending the CHRC's review of the matter.

7The 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 CHRC process.

8I am not seized.