Shaw v. CSH 921 Millwood Inc., 2013 HRTO 1438

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Natalie Shaw

Applicant

-and-

CSH 921 Millwood Inc.

Respondent

-and-

Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: August 22, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1438

Indexed as: Shaw v. CSH 921 Millwood Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Natalie Shaw, Applicant

No submissions filed

CSH 921 Millwood Inc., Respondent

No submissions filed

Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada, Intervenor

Helen Nowak, Counsel

1This is an Application filed 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, place of origin, and ethnic origin. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether or not Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada (“the union”) should be added as an intervenor.

background

2Further to an Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 399, a Notice of Summary Hearing was issued to the parties scheduling an in-person summary hearing for June 19, 2013. The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine whether or not the Application was filed in a timely manner and whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. Both of these issues were raised in the Interim Decision.

3In its Response and in a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), the respondent submitted that the applicant was represented in her employment by the union.

4On her Application form, the applicant indicated that she was not represented by a union. In her Response to the RFOP and in her Reply, the applicant indicated that she was not sure she was a bargaining unit member and represented by the union. She made a number of assertions which involved the union, including, but not limited to, her status changing from part-time to casual because of discussions the union had with the respondent, and being given a telephone number for the union, which did not work, by a co-worker when she found out that her employment was severed in November 2011.

5The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated June 17, 2013 adjourning the June 19, 2013 summary hearing as it determined that despite neither party identifying the union as an affected party, the union should receive notification of the hearing and indicate whether it was seeking intervenor status before the summary hearing was held. The Tribunal provided the union with an opportunity to file a Request to Intervene (“the Request”) by July 11, 2013 and gave the parties 21 days after the Request was delivered, to file a Response to the Request.

6The union filed a Request on July 9, 2013. Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed a Response to the Request and the time for doing so has elapsed.

the request

7The union submits that it was the bargaining agent for employees in the workplace, including the applicant, and seeks to intervene to provide information relevant to the facts presented by the applicant and the respondent. It submits that it was not aware of the applicant’s change of status and was not involved with her issues.

analysis

8As the Tribunal has noted in many applications involving unionized employees, for example, Correia v. Ombudsman (Ontario), 2012 HRTO 501 at para. 7:

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 applicant 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 this case, the union’s Request is granted and the style of cause is amended. The union was the applicant’s bargaining agent in the workplace and both the Response and the Reply address issues pertaining to the union.

10The Tribunal will schedule another date for the summary hearing based upon the issues set out in the Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 399. A further Notice of Hearing will be issued to the parties and the union.