HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sandra Cole
Applicant
-and-
Metro Ontario Inc.
Respondent
United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union, Local 175
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Cole v. Metro Ontario Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Sandra Cole, Applicant
Self-represented
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 175, Respondent
Sandra Cole, Representative
Introduction
1This is 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 disability. This Interim Decision deals with a Request to Intervene filed by the applicant’s bargaining agent, the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union, Local 175 (the “Union”) as well as a Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the applicant.
The Request to Intervene
2The applicant opposes the Request.
3As the Tribunal noted 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.
4The Union advises as indicated above, that the applicant was a member of a bargaining unit for which it has exclusive bargaining rights. It has filed several grievances on behalf of the applicant that relate in whole or in part to issues raised in these proceedings. The applicant has made a number of complaints about the Union in her Application and the Union has indicated that it may wish to respond to those as well. Finally the Union indicates that to the extent that this case may raise questions about the collective agreement it has an obvious interest in those issues as well as any potential remedy that may arise should the applicant be successful in establishing a violation of the Code.
5The applicant opposes the Request. The applicant argues that the Union should not be granted intervenor status because it has inadequately represented her in its handling of her grievances and in its representation of her in this dispute with the respondent employer. .
6In my view it is appropriate that the Union be granted intervenor status as its interest in various aspects of this proceeding is obvious. The applicant’s evident disagreements with the Union are insufficient reasons to alter the normal approach the Tribunal has taken in these kinds of situations. In all the circumstances including the Request is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly.
7The extent and the nature of the intervenor’s participation in the proceeding will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.
The Request of the applicant
8In her Request filed on January 9, 2012 the applicant’s requests that the respondent and the intervenor return to her medical information that she provided to them at some point in the past. The intervenor has responded to the Request, the respondent has not and need not do so.
9The applicant’s Request is denied at this stage. Although it is not entirely clear, the medical information the applicant claims was improperly provided by her to the other parties was delivered to them in the context of another proceeding. Again this is not entirely clear but it may have been in the context of a WSIA claim or one of the grievances filed by the intervenor on her behalf. Whether or not the applicant was entitled to not provide this information in the manner and at that time that she did, this is not an issue that the Tribunal can adjudicate upon. The Tribunal can only make orders and directions in respect of its process. The disclosure of medical information necessary to adjudicate this case has not yet been required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. However I would observe that it is very likely given the issues in dispute in this Application that medical information will be required to properly adjudicate this Application but as indicated the parties’ obligations to disclose to each other all arguably relevant documents have not yet arisen.
Orders and Directions
10The Tribunal makes the following Orders and Directions:
a. The Request to Intervene is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly;
b. The applicant’s Request for Order filed on or about January 9, 2012 is denied at this stage.
11I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of January, 2013.
“signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair