Micone v. York Catholic District School Board, 2014 HRTO 847

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Micone Applicant

-and-

York Catholic District School Board Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1571 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: June 10, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 847 Indexed as: Micone v. York Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Teresa Micone, Representative Stephen Micone, Applicant

York Catholic District School Board, Respondent Jean-Paul Alexandrowicz, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1571, Intervenor Devon Paul, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the grounds of disability. The applicant is represented in the workplace by the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local, Local 1571 (“the union”).

2The respondent has filed a Response in which, amongst other issues, it alleges that the Application, or part of it, should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because of a settlement of a grievance into which the applicant signed with the respondent and the union. The section 45.1 of the Code request will be addressed under separate cover.

3The union filed a Request to Intervene (“the union’s request”). It submits that as the bargaining agent in the workplace, it not only has a collective agreement with the respondent and knows the respondent’s practices and policies, but it also has knowledge of the facts alleged in the Application. It takes no position with respect to the merits of the Application, although it disputes some of the alleged facts, including some of the facts leading to the settlement.

4The applicant filed a Response to the union’s request, opposing it, on the basis that it already negotiated for the applicant. The applicant notes that he did not name the union as a respondent.

5The respondent has not a filed a Response to the union’s request and the time for doing so has elapsed.

6The Tribunal has held in many cases that a union almost always has an interest in participating in the Tribunal’s proceedings. See, for example, Heaney v. Toronto (City), 2014 HRTO 46 at para. 4. In this case, in addition to being the bargaining agent in the workplace and knowing the policies and practices of the respondent, the union is aware of a number of the allegations raised in the Application.

7Accordingly, the union is added as an intervenor and the style of cause is amended accordingly. The hearing adjudicator can determine the extent to which the union can participate during the hearing on the merits.

8I am not seized with this matter.