HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Walsh
Applicant
-and-
The Barclay Construction Group Inc.
Respondent
-and-
Laborers’ International Unon of North Americal, Local 837
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Walsh v. The Barclay Construction Group
1The applicant filed this Application on January 20, 2012, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability. The Application narrative notes that the applicant has a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) appeal underway regarding his condition.
2The Application was served on the respondent and the applicant’s union as a named affected party.
3The respondent filed a Response on March 5, 2012, wherein the respondent asks that the Application either be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code or deferred pending the completion of the WSIB process.
4On March 7, 2012, the applicant’s union, Laborers’ International Union of North Americal, Local 837 (“union”) filed a Request to Intervene.
5The applicant filed a Reply on March 29, 2012.
Request to Intervene
6Neither applicant nor respondent filed any submissions regarding the union’s request to intervene.
7The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The union indicates that it is the exclusive bargaining agent for the applicant. The union’s request sets out the terms upon which it seeks to intervene, including being provided with copies of all materials, being permitted to attend any mediation or hearing and being permitted to make submissions with respect to the collective agreement and any remedies that may impact the collective agreement.
8As the Tribunal indicated 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.
9In 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.
Request to Dismiss/Defer
10The applicant opposes the respondent’s request to dismiss and/or defer.
11It appears that at the time the union filed its request to intervene it had not yet received the respondent’s Response and, as such, the union has not filed submissions in response to the request to dismiss and/or defer.
Order
12The Tribunal orders that the union is granted intervenor status and the style of cause is amended to reflect the same.
13Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the union may file submissions in response to the respondent’s requests. Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant and respondent may file submissions in reply to the union’s submissions. If the union does not file written submissions within 14 days, the Tribunal may make its decision based on the information and submissions already provided by the parties.
14I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of April, 2012.
“signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair