Shaunette Hibbert v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1321

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Shaunette Hibbert

Applicant

-and-

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1483

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: July 29, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1321

Indexed as: Hibbert v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shaunette Hibbert, Applicant

No Submissions

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, Respondent

John-Paul Alexandrowicz, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1483, Intervenor

Paul O’Ryan, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on June 4, 2012 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, sexual solicitation, marital status, age and reprisal.

2The Application is scheduled for hearing on September 5, 2013.

3Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1483 (“the union”), has filed a Request to Intervene in this proceeding as it is the bargaining agent for the applicant in her workplace. It submits that given that the Application raises issues about one of its members, it has a general interest in obtaining intervenor status.

4The respondent filed a Response to a Request for Order (“Response to RFOP”) supporting the union’s request to intervene. It notes that in addition to representing the applicant as its bargaining agent, the applicant has made specific allegations against the union president in her Application. The union is not named as a respondent.

5The applicant did not file a Response to the union’s Request to Intervene.

Analysis

6The Tribunal has held in many cases that a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will grant it intervenor status when requested. The union in this case is the bargaining agent for the applicant and the Application raises allegations about the conduct of other bargaining unit members as well as allegations about the union president although he has not been named personally as a respondent.

7Should the Tribunal find that there was discrimination in this case, the remedies it might order could have an impact on the union’s interests. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the union has an interest in the Application and the Request to Intervene is granted.