HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Heather Chappell
Applicant
-and-
Securitas Canada Limited and Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Chappell v. Securitas Canada Limited
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Heather Chappell, Applicant
Self-represented
Securitas Canada Limited, Respondent
Daniel McDonald, Counsel
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Respondent
Ted Kovacs, Counsel
United Steelworkers of America Local 9507, Intervenor
Shaheen Hirani, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed 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 sex and family status. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request to Intervene (“Request”) filed by the United Steelworkers Local 9597, (“the union”) on May 10, 2012.
2In a previous decision affecting this matter dated May 2, 2012, (2012 HRTO 874) the Tribunal dismissed allegations made by the applicant against the union. In that decision, the Tribunal stated that the union must “file a Request for Order during Proceedings within 14 days of the date of this decision should it wish to remain involved in the Application as an intervenor”. The union states that this part of the Interim Decision constitutes an invitation “to intervene if it wished to in the proceedings as an intervenor”; in my view this is a misreading.
3The parties have not agreed to mediate, and the matter will be scheduled for a hearing. For this reason, the question of intervention in the mediation is no longer an issue in respect of this Application.
4In its Request, the union states that, as the bargaining agent for the applicant, it may be affected by any remedy ordered by the Tribunal. It wishes to attend “at any hearing held by the Tribunal regarding dealings with the applicant as outlined in the Response to an Application, and to make submission with respect to any remedy sought by the applicant”.
5Both respondents responded to the union's Request, but neither takes a position with respect to whether the Request should be granted. The respondent Securitas Canada Limited submits that any determination on the scope of the union's intervention “is most appropriately made by the Vice Chair or Member presiding after any preliminary objections and/or further request for Orders as may arise, if any are decided.
6The applicant strongly objects to the union's continued participation. She highlights the union’s reference to ”providing accurate and relevant information to the Tribunal regarding dealings with the applicant as outlined in the Response” points out that, in their response, the union indicated that its “officers have changed since [the time of some of the applicants grievances] and any records of grievances from that time period are no longer available”.
7It is understandable that the applicant should feel uncomfortable about the union's continued involvement in the hearing, given that the union was adverse in interest to the applicant as a respondent to the original Application. However, the part of the Application that encompass the applicant's allegations against the union has been dismissed pursuant to the decision in 2012 HRTO 874. For this reason, any evidence the union might have to offer about its dealings with the applicant in respect of the allegations that have been dismissed is unlikely to be considered relevant to the subject matter of the hearing.
8The fact remains that, in addition to the union’s involvement in the subject matter remaining to be dealt with in the Application, the union does have an interest in such matters as any remedies that might be given if the applicant is successful at the hearing. The Tribunal indicated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131, that:
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.
9I agree that the union has the requisite interest in this Application and the union is accordingly granted leave to intervene.
10In regard to the scope of the union’s intervention, this is best left to the Vice-Chair or Member of the Tribunal who is assigned the merits hearing. The parties will have the opportunity to make submissions as to the appropriate scope of the intervention.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of November, 2012.
”signed by”
Judith Keene
Vice-chair