Jamie Crossett v. Concrete Systems Ltd., 2012 HRTO 251

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jamie Crossett

Applicant

-and-

Concrete Systems Ltd.

Respondent

-and-

Construction Workers Local 53

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: February 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 251

Indexed as: Crossett v. Concrete Systems Ltd.

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on October 24, 2011, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the ground of disability. This Interim Decision deals with a Request to Intervene made by the applicant’s union, Construction Workers Local 53 (“the union”). The union is the bargaining agent for employees in the applicant’s workplace.

2The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The union’s main concern appears to be that the subject matter of the Application might engage provisions of the collective agreement relating to the termination of employment, and that it has relevant information to offer. The union wishes to call evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses and make both written and oral submissions with respect to “any issue that arises in this Application”.

3The applicant and the respondent did not take advantage of their opportunity under Rule 11.4 to file a response to the Request to Intervene, and have therefore neither agreed nor objected to the proposed intervention.

4A union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and unless there are exceptional circumstances the Tribunal will grant the bargaining agent intervener status when requested. I see no reason, under the circumstances, not to grant the union’s request to intervene.

5The extent of the intervener’s participation in the Tribunal’s proceedings will be determined by the Tribunal at the appropriate time.

6I am not seized of this matter.