Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1291

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Deopaul Chintaman Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Craig Snider, Don Higgins, and Lisa Kivlichan Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4400 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: June 29, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1291 Indexed as: Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Deopaul Chintaman, Applicant ) Self-represented

Toronto District School Board, Craig Snider, ) Glorie Alfred, Counsel Don Higgins, and Lisa Kivlichan, Respondents )

Canadian Union of Public Employees, ) Mark Wright, Counsel Local 4400, Intervenor )

1This Application was filed on January 4, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended. The Application was deferred by way of Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 463 pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.

2On March 26, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking that the Tribunal reactivate his Application. The applicant alleged that his union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4400 (“CUPE”), and the respondent employer had settled his grievances.

3By way of Case Assessment Direction dated May 15, 2012, the Tribunal directed the respondents to provide clarification regarding the applicant’s claim that his grievances are settled.

4On June 4, 2012, the respondents filed submissions indicating that they opposed the request to reactivate the Application on the basis that the grievance process has not yet been completed because the grievances are currently adjourned sine die.

5The applicant’s union, CUPE, had previously filed a Request to Intervene in this Application, which remains outstanding. On June 7, 2012, CUPE wrote to the Tribunal advising that it supports the applicant’s request to reactive the Applicaiton. CUPE explained that the applicant’s grievance arbitration hearing dates of September 29 and October 19, 2011, were adjourned sine die. CUPE indicated that it has no intention of proceeding with the grievances which, as of September 28, 2012, will be considered formally withdrawn. CUPE provided copies of letters exchanged with the arbitrator confirming that the grievance hearing is adjourned sine die pending the September 28, 2012 deadline. CUPE submits that, although the September 28, 2012 deadline has not yet elapsed, the hearing will not be relisted and it considers the grievances withdrawn.

6On June 11, 2012, the applicant filed submissions indicating that the grievance arbitration is not proceeding and, as such, there is no basis to continue to defer his Application.

7On my review of the material before me, I find that it is appropriate to reactivate the Application.

8The arbitration hearing did not proceed in the fall of 2011. Since that time, there has not been any progress with respect to the grievances and there is no indication that the arbitration hearing will be relisted. The applicant’s union, the entity with carriage of the grievances, indicates that it has decided not to continue with the matter and it considers the grievances to be withdrawn. The respondents do not indicate that the grievances will proceed, only that the grievances are adjourned sine die. The respondents have not indicated any intention to proceed with arbitration.

9According to the Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 463, the Application was originally deferred because there was an arbitration process is underway. That process is no longer active and there appears to be no indication that the arbitration will resume. As such, I am satisfied that reactivation is appropriate.

10In the Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 463 the Tribunal indicated that it would consider CUPE’s Request to Intervene at reactivation. As the Tribunal stated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131:

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.

11In accordance with the Tribunal’s standard practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by a union, CUPE’s Request to intervene is granted. The scope of the CUPE’s participation in the hearing will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the Application.

12The Tribunal orders as follows:

i. The Application is reactivated; and ii. CUPE is granted intervenor status and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

13I am not seized of this matter.