Dafoe v. Lambton (County), 2012 HRTO 1495

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Dafoe

Applicant

-and-

County of Lambton

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2926

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith Date: July 31, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1495 Indexed as: Dafoe v. Lambton (County)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2926

Paul O’Ryan, Counsel

BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed March 7, 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 disability. The respondents filed a Response on June 11, 2012.

2On June 19, 2012, the applicant’s bargaining agent, The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2926, (“CUPE”) filed a Request to Intervene in the Application. In the Request CUPE noted:

1. its status as exclusive bargaining agent for the applicant gives it an interest in these proceedings such that it is entitled to be permitted to intervene in the proceedings;

2. it is entitled to intervene in the proceedings because the issues raised by the applicant, and the remedies requested by the applicant, could impact on the collective agreement between CUPE and the employer. In particular, the applicant is requesting reinstatement of employment. If such an order was made by the Tribunal the entire bargaining unit might be impacted.

3Both the applicant and respondent made no submissions with regard to the request by CUPE to intervene, and the time for such submissions is past.

ANALYSIS

4The Tribunal’s Rule 11.1 provides that:

The Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine. The Tribunal will determine the extent to which an intervenor will be permitted to participate in a proceeding.

5As stated by the Tribunal in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131 at para. 13:

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.

6In the present case the applicant is still represented by a bargaining agent. Pursuant to Boyce, above, the Tribunal’s established practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit is to grant intervenor status when requested by the union, absent exceptional circumstances. See: D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1187, Oxley v. Vaughan (City) 2011 HRTO 1295, Yonis v. Newalto Corporation, 2011 HRTO 1352, Pak v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 1356; Woito v. Marianhill, 2011 HRTO 1437 and Still v. El-Met Parts, 2011 HRTO 2310.

7Based on the submissions of CUPE, I am satisfied that it has an interest in the outcome of the Application. As such, in accordance with the Tribunal’s standard practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by a union or vocational association, CUPE’s request to intervene is granted.

ORDER

8CUPE is granted intervenor status and the style of cause is amended accordingly. The extent and the nature of CUPE’s participation in the proceeding will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.

9I am not seized of this matter.