Gerrick v. Ceva Logistics, 2011 HRTO 712

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carlton Gerrick

Applicant

-and-

Ceva Logistics and Lee Hollett

Respondents

-and-

United Steelworkers

Intervenor

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: April 12, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 712

Indexed as: Gerrick v. Ceva Logistics

APPEARANCES BY

Carlton Gerrick, Applicant ) Self-represented

Ceva Logistics, Respondent ) Catherine Longo, Law Student

Lee Hollett, Respondent )

and )

United Steelworkers, Intervenor ) Shaheen Hirani, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin and creed.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated February 17, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held pursuant to Rule 19.A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The summary hearing was held by telephone conference call on April 11, 2011. All the parties participated.

3The applicant is an employee of the corporate respondent and is a member of the United Steelworkers. The personal respondent is a union official.

Background

4In 2009, the applicant was involved in an altercation at work with a co-worker. The applicant maintains that the co-worker was the aggressor. However, the employer determined that the applicant was the aggressor. At the time, the employer operated two separate facilities. The applicant and the co-worker were employed at one of the facilities. The employer determined that the applicant should be moved to the other facility. The co-worker had more seniority than the applicant.

5The applicant subsequently bid on at least two job postings, which went to other workers with less seniority. He alleges that this occurred because of discrimination. However, he agrees that the postings were in the facility where the co-worker worked and acknowledges that this was the reason he was given for why he did not get the jobs.

6The applicant was asked to provide information that would show that he has experienced harassment and discrimination contrary to the Code. He explained that he feels that he has not been treated fairly by either his employer or his union. He feels that he has been improperly denied jobs that he has applied for by his employer and his union unfairly refused to pursue grievances on his behalf.

7He was asked if he could think of any other thing that happened at work that might show discrimination or harassment contrary to the Code. He said that he was participating in the conference call from the home of the co-worker’s ex-partner but did not explain how this could be evidence of discrimination or harassment. The applicant stated that harassment and discrimination must be the cause for the unfairness that he believes he has experienced because he can think of no other reason for the unfairness.

Decision

8In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 7-9, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may not have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

9As noted in the Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal does not have the power to deal with all claims of unfairness. The Tribunal only deal with applications alleging a violation of the Code, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on specific grounds. To succeed, the applicant must establish that the respondents treated him differently as compared to others based on his race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin or creed. The issue in the summary hearing is whether there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to show a link between his allegations and the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin or creed.

10The assertion that a person is of a certain race, colour or creed or has a certain ethnic origin is not enough by itself to establish harassment or discrimination under the Code. To succeed, an applicant must be able to show that unfair treatment occurred at least in part because of a Code-protected ground.

11Having heard from the applicant, I must conclude there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to show that the unfairness that he alleges was influenced in any way by his race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin or creed. While the applicant has identified several instances of alleged unfairness, he has not been able to show that there is any reasonable prospect that he can link the alleged unfairness to his race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin or creed. His allegations are based on speculation..

12For this reason, I conclude that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed and it is dismissed on that basis.