HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Frederik Daragjati
Applicant
-and-
Strabag Inc. – Tunneling & Services and Ernst Gschnitzer
Respondents
-and-
Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 837
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Daragjati v. Strabag Inc. – Tunneling & Services
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 837, Intervenor ) Lindsay Lawrence, Counsel )
BACKGROUND
1This is an Application filed on February 23, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in employment because of disability and reprisal.
2On May 24, 2011, the applicant’s bargaining agent, the Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 837, (“LIUNA”) filed a Request to Intervene in the Application pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure. This Interim Decision addresses this Request.
3To date, the parties to this Application have filed no submissions with regard to LIUNA’s Request to Intervene, and the time for filing submissions is past.
4The Application has been set down to be heard on its merits on October 26, 2012.
ANALYSIS
5LIUNA is seeking to intervene on the basis that it has an interest in the outcome of the litigation. The Union represents the applicant in the workplace as the applicant’s exclusive bargaining agent. LIUNA explained its Request on the following basis:
…the Union is interested in maintaining the integrity of its collective agreement and in ensuring the rights of its members under the collective agreement are protected…
…The Union clearly has experience and expertise in relation to the interpretation and administration of the collective agreement, and in dealing with the Employer in labour relations matters, including disability accommodation issues that impact upon its members.
6The 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.
7As 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.
8Pursuant 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 or association. See for example 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; and the very recent Interim Decision in Daoust v. Health Services North, 2012 HRTO 278.
9Having reviewed the Application, Response, and Reply, it appears that LIUNA has a significant interest in the allegations and that its members may be impacted by the potential factual findings in this proceeding.
10In sum, I find that it would be fair, just and expeditious to permit LIUNA to intervene in this Application.
ORDER
11LIUNA is granted intervenor status and the style of cause is amended accordingly. The extent and the nature of the Union’s participation in the proceeding will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.
12Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 16, the parties will provide LIUNA with disclosure of documents arguably relevant to the up-coming hearing and will provide disclosure of witnesses pursuant to Rule 17.
13I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2012
”signed by”_____________
Alan G. Smith
Member