Janet McKenzie v. Chrysler Canada Inc., 2012 HRTO 1940

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Janet McKenzie

Applicant

-and-

Chrysler Canada Inc.

Respondent

-and-

CAW-Canada Local 444

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: October 12, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1940

Indexed as: McKenzie v. Chrysler Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CAW-Canada Local 444, Intervenor

Farah Baloo, Counsel

1This Application was filed on January 12, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The applicant alleges that the respondent employer refused to accommodate her needs related to her disability in failing to provide suitable work.

2On April 11, 2012, the respondent filed a Response denying the allegations. The respondent also indicated that it shares the management of workplace accommodations with the applicant’s union.

3On April 11, 2012, the applicant’s union, CAW-Canada Local 444 (“union”), filed a request to intervene in the Application, and provided a narrative demonstrating that it has knowledge of the workplace and history of the applicant’s employment as well as knowledge of the process used by it and the employer to determine what accommodation might be provided. The union has requested that it be permitted to make submissions, present evidence, and examine the applicant’s witnesses.

4Neither the applicant nor the respondent has filed any position with respect to the union’s request to intervene.

5The 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.

6Based on the information provided by the Application, Response and Reply, as well as by the submissions of the union, I am satisfied that the union has an interest in the outcome of the Application. The union demonstrates that it has knowledge of the applicant’s situation, and it will no doubt be able to provide the Tribunal with assistance regarding the terms and conditions of the employment and the process in which it participates to accommodate its members’ disabilities, including the process it followed to deal with the applicant’s requests for accommodation.

7As 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.

8The union, CAW-Canada Local 444, is granted intervenor status. The scope of the union’s intervention and terms of participation will be decided by the adjudicator overseeing the hearing.

9I am not seized.