Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Steve Menyhart
Applicant
-and-
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Respondent
-and-
National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada)
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Menyhart v. Waterloo (Municipality)
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 colour, gender expression and identity, race and reprisal.
2The applicant made a complaint about what he apparently believed was an inappropriate poster in a washroom in his workplace. In his Application the applicant has cited several grounds of alleged discrimination but the allegations of the applicant are that his complaint was not investigated appropriately and that he has been treated unfairly in the workplace since he made the complaint. The applicant alleges that the performance issues identified by the respondent are a reprisal for making the complaint. The applicant also alleges that he was denied training opportunities as a reprisal for his complaint about the poster.
3The respondent has filed a Response and denies the allegations of the applicant. The respondent states that it investigated the applicant’s complaint immediately and that the poster was removed. The respondent also asserts that the performance issues had been identified before he made the complaint. The respondent argues that the Application discloses no prima facie case of discrimination and should be dismissed.
4The applicant filed a Reply and denies that there were any performance issues prior to his complaint.
5In his Reply the applicant also appears to be alleging that the poster he complained of was discriminatory. In its Response the respondent has addressed this claim to some degree.
6It is not clear how the placement of the poster in a washroom, which is apparently not disputed, might be considered to be discrimination under the Code. Whether it is may not have any impact on the adjudication of the reprisal issues which appeared to have been the primary focus of the Application as originally framed. However the parties should be prepared to address whether or not the allegation that the placement of the poster in question in a washroom was discrimination at the appropriate time in this proceeding.
THE REQUEST TO INTERVENE
7The applicant’s bargaining agent, the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), has filed a Request to Intervene to which no other party has responded.
8As 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.
9The union’s interest, particularly as it relates to possible remedy, is evident in this case. In all the circumstances including no opposition expressed by the other parties the Request is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly.
10The extent and the nature of the intervenor’s participation in the proceeding will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.
OTHER MATTERS
11The applicant has not indicated that he is willing to participate in mediation. The respondent has agreed to mediation. The applicant is directed to confirm whether he is willing to participate in mediation within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision, failing which this case will be scheduled for a two day hearing.
12I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of May, 2013.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair