Sheehan v. Mauser Canada, 2013 HRTO 1256

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Richard Sheehan Applicant

-and-

Mauser Canada Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: July 18, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1256 Indexed as: Sheehan v. Mauser Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Richard Sheehan, Applicant Self-represented

Mauser Canada, Respondent Brian O’Byrne, Counsel

1In an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, 2013 HRTO 645, the Tribunal deferred this Application, pending the conclusion of a union grievance regarding a three day disciplinary suspension the applicant received that is also at issue in this matter. On May 3, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking re-activation of the deferred Application. The applicant submitted that there was in fact no such grievance and therefore deferral was unnecessary.

2In light of the parties’ contradictory statements regarding the grievance in question, the Tribunal, by Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated June 19, 2013, directed the applicant to make written submissions that explain his assertion that no grievance was filed regarding the suspension he received, given the grievance form the respondent filed that indicates such a grievance was indeed filed. In the same CAD, the Tribunal also directed the respondent to make written submissions regarding the status of the grievance of the three day suspension it imposed on the applicant.

3On July 2, 2013, the applicant filed submissions in which he stated that the grievance does not address the three day suspension referred to in the Application (the grievance form does not specify the length of the grievance). Rather, the applicant submitted that the grievance that is proceeding to arbitration concerns a two week suspension that ran from some time toward the end of December 2012 until January 17, 2013. The applicant notes that the union filed the grievance by January 19, 2013 to come within the time limits set out in the collective agreement between the respondent and the applicant’s trade union. The three day suspension apparently occurred in the fall of 2012; therefore, a grievance filed on January 19, 2013 would be out of time, pursuant to the time limits in the collective agreement – unless an extension was granted. The applicant submitted that he is the Chairman of the union and therefore would be aware of any such extension.

4On July 3, 2013, the respondent filed submissions in which it submitted that the grievance concerning the three day suspension imposed on the applicant has been referred to arbitration and an arbitrator selected. The respondent submitted that the parties are canvassing dates for the hearing in August and September.

ANALYSIS AND DIRECTION

5It remains unclear whether the grievance proceeding to arbitration shall deal with the three day suspension referred to in the Application, or some other grievance. In light of the respondent’s submission that the grievance of the three day suspension is likely to be litigated in the near future, the most fair, just and expeditious procedure is to continue to defer the Application, but also to require the parties to report regarding the status of the grievance in relatively short order.

ORDER

6The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The request to reactivate the Application is denied.

2. The parties are directed to advise the Tribunal of the status of grievance, identified by the parties as CS 13 (dated January 16, 2013) on October 15, 2013. If the hearing of the arbitration has commenced, the parties are also directed to identify the issues litigated before the arbitrator.