Said Khalil v. Hellenic Home for the Aged Inc., 2012 HRTO 1464

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Said Khalil

Applicant

-and-

Hellenic Home for the Aged Inc.

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4830

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 31, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1464

Indexed as: Khalil v. Hellenic Home for the Aged Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hellenic Home for the Aged Inc., Respondent

James D. Campbell, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Intervenor

Ryan Goldvine, Counsel

1This Application was filed on January 10, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of creed. The applicant alleges that the respondent employer refused to accommodate his religious needs in failing to provide gender separate break rooms.

2On February 14, 2012, the respondent filed a Response denying the allegations. The respondent alleges that the applicant never raised any religion based concerns, nor requested any accommodation of his needs.

3On February 23, the applicant's union, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4830 ("union"), filed a request to intervene in the Application indicating that it has knowledge of the workplace and history of the applicant's employment. The union notes that the applicant's wrongful dismissal grievance was settled; however, the applicant had not received the settlement funds. The union further notes that the settlement specifically permitted the applicant to proceed with a human rights application regarding his concerns of religious accommodation.

4On March 7, 2012, the respondent employer filed a response opposing the union's request to intervene. The respondent indicates that the settlement monies have now been paid to the applicant and that the union has no role to play in the hearing since the allegations contained in the Application are outside of the grievance settlement.

5The applicant has not filed submissions indicating whether he consents or objects to the union participating as an intervenor.

6The Tribunal stated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131 has stated:

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.

7Based on the information provided by the parties and the submissions of the union, I am satisfied that the union has an interest in the outcome of the Application. The union indicates that it has knowledge of the applicant's situation and is concerned about ensuring the protection of the Collective Agreement. While the settlement monies may no longer be an issue in dispute between the parties and the union, the union may still be able to provide the Tribunal with assistance regarding the terms and conditions of the employment.

8As such, and in accordance with the Tribunal's standard practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by the union, the union's request to intervene is granted.

9The union, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4830, is granted intervenor status. The scope of the union's intervention and terms of participation will be decided by the adjudicator overseeing the hearing.

10I am not seized