HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Elise Runions
Applicant
-and-
City of Brockville
Respondent
AND B E T W E E N:
Elise Runions
Applicant
-and-
Brockville Professional Firefighters Association
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Indexed as: Runions v. Brockville (City)
Appearances
Elise Runions, Applicant ) Jeremy Wright, Counsel
City of Brockville, Respondent ) Andrew Zabrovsky, Counsel
Brockville Professional Firefighters )
Association, Respondent ) Peter Engelmann, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This Decision arises from two Applications filed by Ms. Runions (the applicant), alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association on the basis of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O., 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Applications were filed pursuant to 53(5) of the Code on May 7, 2009.
2The respondents are the City of Brockville Fire Department (the employer) and the Brockville Firefighters Association (the association). The applicant filed two identical Complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the Commission) on June 2, 2008 alleging that the employer and association negotiated a collective agreement in force from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008 (the collective agreement) which contained discriminatory terms. The original Complaints were abandoned upon the filing of these Applications with the Tribunal.
3The applicant is employed as a First Class Dispatcher in the Communications department. She commenced work in that role on January 5, 1987. The association represents all of the employees in the four divisions that make up the fire department: Fire Suppression; Fire Prevention; Training and Communications. All of the employees in these four divisions are classified as firefighters under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.4, as amended. The applicant testified that there were approximately 28 employees in Fire Suppression; 2 in Fire Prevention; 4 in Communications (including the applicant) and 1 Training Officer. There are other women who work in clerical or administrative positions however, apart from the applicant and one other female Dispatcher, the members of the association who work in the four divisions are all men.
4The applicant was the first woman hired as a Dispatcher in 1987. At that time she worked with 3 male Dispatchers. Prior to 1987, the job of Dispatcher was done by male firefighters. Since 1999 there have been four full time Dispatchers, two women and two men. At the time of the hearing of this matter there were also 3 men who worked as part time Dispatchers.
5The parties agreed that the Communications Division is the only one of the four Divisions which has ever employed association members who are women. This is really the basis for the applicant’s concerns: since the employees in all four divisions are all members of the same Association and all designated as firefighters, she contends they should be treated the same when it comes to wages and benefits. The failure on the part of the employer and association to negotiate the same benefits for the 4 divisions is attributed by the applicant to sex discrimination.
6The applicant specifically alleges that as a First Class Dispatcher and member of the Communications Division she earns 70 percent of what a First Class Firefighter earns in the other 3 divisions. The members of the Communications Division are eligible for 2 percent service pay but are excluded from an experience pay provision which the applicant describes as superior. Experience pay was achieved for the first time for the 3 other divisions in the January 2006 collective agreement. The applicant alleges that her scheduled lunch and breaks are inferior, she is not consulted on shift changes and she is unable to take vacation in the form of single shifts as opposed to blocks of time. The applicant also alleges that she has no “voice” within her association. The applicant alleges that these differences in the collective agreement arise from her experience as a woman working in a traditional, male dominated workplace.
7The respondents each filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Request) seeking dismissal of the Applications on the basis that the applicant is unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of sex. The respondents take the position that the applicant is unable to prove a connection between the treatment she alleges and the ground of sex. The respondents argue that any distinctions between the four divisions are based on classification and functions and not in any way related to gender. The respondents argue that the applicant’s allegations are untenable in the face of the fact that women and men work side by side as Dispatchers in the Communications Division.
8The respondents also argued that the claim for equal wages, which is contained in the applications filed with the Tribunal, was not raised in the original complaints to the Commission and cannot be said to arise from the subject-matter of the original complaints. The respondents requested that the Tribunal decline to deal with this issue.
9I refused to have the Requests heard in writing.