Mohammed Wazid v. Dairy Products In Motion and Many Valadao, 2011 HRTO 397

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mohammed Wazid

Applicant

-and-

Dairy Products In Motion and Many Valadao

Respondents

-and-

United Steelworkers

Intervener

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: February 23, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 397

Indexed as: Wazid v. Dairy Products in Motion

1The applicant filed an Application on September 22, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), in which he alleges discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed, family status, record of offences and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground.

2The Application originally identified the applicant’s union, the United Steelworkers, and various individual members of the union as respondents. By way of Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 2398, the Tribunal determined that there were no allegations that the union or the individuals violated the Code and ordered the union and various individuals removed as respondents. In light of its role as the applicant’s bargaining agent, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s union was an interested party.

3On January 5, 2011, the United Steelworkers filed a Request to Intervene on the basis that it participated in representing the applicant throughout his employment and with respect to his grievance arising out of the termination of his employment.

4In his Response, filed on February 17, 2011, the applicant opposes the union’s request to intervene. The applicant appears to argue that the since the union was removed as a respondent that it should not be allowed to intervene.

5The respondents have not filed any submissions in response to the proposed intervention and the timeline for doing so has elapsed.

6The applicant’s union seeks to intervene pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

7The Tribunal indicated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131, that:

A union or association nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in a bargaining unit it represents when the application alleges discrimination in employment. Absent exceptional circumstances, the applicant’s bargaining agent will be granted intervention status in Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.

8In accordance with the Tribunal’s standard practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by the union, the United Steelworkers’ request to intervene is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly. Should the Application proceed to hearing, the scope of the union’s intervention will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.

9The respondents have indicated a willingness to participate in mediation. The applicant is directed within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision to write to the Tribunal, copied to the respondents and the union, as to whether the applicant agrees to participate in mediation. If the applicant consents, mediation will be scheduled in the normal course.

10I am not seized of this matter.