Meyyan v. Aerotek Manufacturing Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1181

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sabalinggan Meyyan

Applicant

-and-

Aerotek Manufacturing Ltd., Cathy Geddis and Robert Geddis

Respondents

-and-

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 905

Affected Party

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: August 8, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1181

Indexed as: Meyyan v. Aerotek Manufacturing Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sabalinggan Meyyan, Applicant

Self-represented

Aerotek Manufacturing Ltd., Cathy Geddis and Robert Geddis, Respondents

Jonathan Schofield, Representative

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 905, Affected Party

Christine Davies, Counsel

Introduction

1The Applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of colour and age and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On consent of the parties, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the Application pending the outcome of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) complaint filed by the applicant against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 905 (“union”). The union was named as an affected party in this case.

2By decision dated January 22, 2014, the OLRB dismissed the applicant’s unfair representation complaint against his union. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request to re-activate the Application. In his request to re-activate his Application, the applicant requests that the Tribunal order the union to refer two grievances he filed to arbitration.

3By letter dated July 11, 2014, the union opposed the applicant’s request to re-activate his Application. The union submitted that the Tribunal may want to consider whether the Application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code. This section provides the Tribunal with the power to dismiss Applications where the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. In its letter, the union also submitted that it was inappropriate of the applicant to request that the Tribunal order the union to refer his grievances to arbitration since the union is not named as a respondent to the Application.

4By letter dated July 15, 2014, the respondents also opposed the applicant’s request to re-activate his Application. The respondents submitted that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 because the OLRB determined that the union’s decision not to refer the complaint was not unfair, arbitrary or discriminatory. The respondents argue that the substance of the Application was appropriately dealt with by the OLRB and the matter is res judicata.

5I grant the applicant’s request to re-activate his Application.

6I find that s. 45.1 of the Code does not apply in this case. The OLRB decision does not address the substance of the Application. The decision addressed a complaint made against the union, which is not a respondent to this Application. The substance of the Application relates to alleged actions taken by the respondents. This is a separate issue from the union’s actions and it is an issue that did not arise in the complaint before the OLRB.

7I note that the union has not been named as a respondent to the Application. It is only an affected party. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to order a remedy against the union in this case.

ORder

8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The Application is re-activated.

b. The respondents’ request to dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 of the Code is denied.

c. The respondents must file their Response (Form 2) within 28 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

9I am not seized.