Chinniah v. Algoma Public Health, 2014 HRTO 22

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mahendren Chinniah Applicant

-and-

Algoma Public Health, Sherri Cleaves, Marshall Chow, Antoniette Tomie and Jeff Holmes Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1528 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: January 7, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 22 Indexed as: Chinniah v. Algoma Public Health

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mahendren Chinniah, Applicant Kent Elson, Counsel

Algoma Public Health, Sherri Cleaves, Marshall Chow, Antoniette Tomie and Jeff Holmes, Respondents Kathleen Stokes, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1528, Intervenor Elizabeth Nurse, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). Reprisal is also alleged. The Application is about why the applicant's employment with the corporate respondent was terminated. The applicant was a probationary public health inspector at the time his employment was ended.

2This Interim Decision deals with a request by the respondents that the Tribunal deal with this Application by way of a summary hearing on the grounds that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. It also deals with a request by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) to intervene in the Application.

3I have reviewed the submissions of the applicant and the respondents in relation to the request for a summary hearing. The request is denied. Rule 19A.5 of the HRTO's Rules of Procedure provides that the HRTO need not give reasons for a decision not to hold a summary hearing.

4In relation to the request to intervene, CUPE argues that because the applicant is requesting a number of public interest remedies that could have a bearing on the interpretation and operation of the collective agreement it has with the corporate respondent, it should be granted intervenor status. The applicant opposes intervention on the grounds that as a probationer the union did not assist him in his dealings with the respondents, and it should not now be allowed to participate in the Application.

5As stated by the Tribunal in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131 at para. 13:

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.

6Applying this reasoning to the present case, CUPE is accorded intervenor status in this proceeding, with the right to participate in the hearing in relation to matters that affect its members or representatives or its interests under the collective agreement. Any correspondence sent or materials served by the parties shall also be sent to or served upon CUPE.

Order

7The respondents' request for a summary hearing is denied.

8The union's request to intervene is granted on the terms set out above.