HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kelly Chadwick
Applicant
-and-
The Corporation of Norfolk County and Norview Lodge
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Chadwick v. The Corporation of Norfolk County
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Kelly Chadwick, Applicant
Sara Erskine, Counsel
The Corporation of Norfolk County and Norview Lodge, Respondents
Ryan Conlin, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision deals with the respondents’ submission that the Application should be dismissed because the applicant could have filed a grievance that could have appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
2Section 45.1 of the Code provides as follows:
45.1 The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
3Section 45.1 applies only if another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. It does not apply if another proceeding could appropriately deal with the substance of the Application. If a unionized applicant has filed a grievance that is underway, the Tribunal will generally defer consideration of the Application until the grievance has been concluded. In some cases, it will be clear that the grievance procedure has in fact appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. This however can only be determined once the grievance proceeding has concluded.
4In the present case, the applicant is a member of the Service Employees International Union, Local 1 (“the union”). There is no dispute that the union has filed grievances in regard to some of the factual history underlying the Application.
5The first of these was filed in April 2010. There is no dispute that this grievance was withdrawn in September 2011.
6In April 2011, the union filed a policy grievance that was withdrawn in September 2011.
7According to the respondent, in August 2011, the union filed another policy grievance that was denied by the employer in October 2011. The grievance has not been withdrawn but has also not proceeded.
8The union filed another grievance in regard to a written warning issued on November 21, 2011. The grievance was upheld by the employer and the written warning was removed.
Conclusion
9With the exception of the grievance filed in respect of the November 2011 written warning, it appears that no grievance proceeding has in fact dealt with the substance of the Application. There is accordingly no basis to dismiss the Application under section 45.1 of the Code.
10While it appears that there may be an outstanding policy grievance, it does not appear that this is being pursued at present and so there is also no basis to defer further consideration of the Application.
Order
11The respondents request that the Application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of July, 2012.
Signed by
Brian Cook
Vice-chair