HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robert Rajcevic Applicant
-and-
Gentek Building Products Limited Respondent
-and-
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: May 20, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 712 Indexed as: Rajcevic v. Genrek Building Products Limited
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Robert Rajcevic, Applicant Self-represented
United Steelworker United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Intervenor Andrew MacIsaac, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment. The respondent has not yet filed a Response.
2This Interim Decision deals with a number of procedural issues.
Request to Intervene
3On May 6, 2014, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (the “Union”) filed a Request to intervene.
4Neither party filed submissions in response to the Union’s request to intervene.
5Having considered the matter, I find that the Union has an interest in this proceeding. The Union’s Request to intervene is allowed and the style of cause shall be amended to reflect this change.
Deferral of the Application
6On April 7, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to defer. The Union filed submissions in support of deferral. The respondent filed no submissions on the issue of deferral.
7The applicant filed submissions opposing the deferral of the Application for a number of reasons including that the grievance is not proceeding expeditiously. The applicant states that the arbitration hearing scheduled in January 2014 was adjourned so that it could obtain medical reports from his treating physician. The applicant believes that he is not being fairly represented by his Union and that he does not know when the arbitration hearing will be held.
8The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
9Applying these principles to this case, I find that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration proceedings. The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42, 2003 SCC 42.
10In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings consider concurrently the same facts as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions. With respect to the applicant’s allegations that the Union is not keeping him apprised of the status of the arbitration he must address this issue with his union. However, if the grievances are not being dealt with in a diligent manner in the future then the applicant can bring a request to reactivate the Application, and the Tribunal will base its decision to defer based on the circumstances before it at that time.
11Therefore, it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.
12The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rule 14 which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an Application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
13I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of May, 2014.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair