HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dence Pinnock

Applicant

-and-

William Osler Health System

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: May 24, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 907

Indexed as: Pinnock v. William Osler Health System

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dence Pinnock, Applicant

No Submissions

William Osler Health System, Respondent

George Avraam, Counsel

Ontario Nurses’ Association, Intervenor

Colin Johnston, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 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 disability and alleging reprisal. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider a Request to Intervene made by the applicant’s union, the Ontario Nurses’ Association (“the union”).

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

2In this Application the applicant alleges that the respondent initially advised her that it required an Independent Medical Examination (IME) prior to permitting her to return to work following a medical leave. She also alleges that the respondent relented, permitting her to return to work without undergoing an IME, but that it required her to submit a learning plan “related to various nursing strategies and methods”. She alleges that the respondent’s actions violated the Code. She indicates that she had previously complained of having experienced “personal harassment” by coworkers, including her union representative, and she alleges that the employer’s conduct was discrimination and reprisal because of her medical leave and her medical status and also because of her previous complaint about her coworkers.

3The union is the bargaining agent for employees in the applicant’s workplace. The Tribunal, therefore, gave notice of the Application to the union.

4The respondent consents to the union’s Request to Intervene.

5The applicant has not made submissions regarding the union’s Request to Intervene.

6The union submits that its interest in the Application stems from the fact that it is the bargaining agent for registered nurses, including the applicant, who are employed at the respondent employer. It also indicates that it disputes the claim that the union representative personally harassed the applicant and that it filed a grievance on the applicant’s behalf when she complained to the union regarding poor treatment from coworkers. It indicates that the grievance has not been withdrawn or referred to arbitration.

7The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The union has an interest in the outcome of the Application. The union’s Request to Intervene is granted.

8I am not seized.