HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joseph Esmama
Applicant
-and-
Carillion Services Canada
Respondent
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 145
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Esmama v. Carillion Services Canada
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Joseph Esmama, Applicant ) Self-represented
Carillion Services Canada, Respondent ) Dan Shields, Counsel
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 145, ) Susan Ballantyne,
Intervenor ) Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses: (i) the request of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 145, (“Local 145”) to intervene and (ii) the respondent’s request that the Application be deferred pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings. This Application is based on the same set of facts as an ongoing grievance under the collective agreement filed by the applicant.
2Local 145, the applicant’s bargaining agent, seeks to intervene. The other parties did not file a response to this request, although the applicant sent a letter to the Tribunal seeking to “discharge” Local 145 from any part of these proceedings. It is evident that Local 145 has an interest in this matter and leave to intervene is granted.
3The respondent, supported by Local 145, seeks deferral pending a grievance raising related issues. The applicant did not respond to this Request although directed to do so by a letter from the Tribunal. The Request to Defer is granted. The Tribunal will generally defer applications pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings under a collective agreement that raise the same issues as those in the Application: Melville v. Toronto (City), 2012 HRTO 22. Labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Code and the Tribunal’s approach to deferral avoids the duplication of proceedings. The applicant does not dispute that he has an ongoing grievance raising the same issues and there are no exceptional circumstances in this case that justify a departure from the Tribunal’s general approach.
4The Application will be deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which a party may request that the Application be reactivated. This must be done within 60 days of the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Request for Summary Hearing will be dealt with, if necessary, upon reactivation.
5I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of March, 2012.
”Signed by”______________
David A. Wright
Associate Chair