Wendy Membreno Gonzalez v. Firan Technology Group Corporation, 2014 HRTO 855

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wendy Membreno Gonzalez

Applicant

-and-

Firan Technology Group Corporation

Respondent

-and-

Unifor, Local 303

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: June 10, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 855

Indexed as: Gonzalez v. Firan Technology Group Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Wendy Membreno Gonzalez, Applicant

Sheldon Kasman, Counsel

Firan Technology Group Corporation, Respondent

Abdul-Basit Khan, Counsel

Unifor, Local 303, Intervenor

Farah Baloo, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is granting the request of Unifor, Local 303 to intervene in this Application.

2The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment and contracts because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Reprisal is also alleged.

3The applicant is an employee of the respondent. She was hired in 2004 as a Final Assembly Operator and most recently worked as a Machine Shop Helper, a position she transferred into in June of 2012. She alleges that the respondent has not accommodated her disabilities because it failed to make modified work available to her.

4The workplace is unionised and the applicant is a member of Unifor, Local 303 (“the union”). The union requests to intervene in this Application because it argues that when the applicant sought modified duties it advocated on her behalf, and is in a position to address the steps taken by the respondent to respond to the applicant’s request for accommodation.

5The applicant opposes intervention. The bulk of her submissions dispute what the union says it did on behalf of the applicant but the submissions do not provide a reason why the union should not be allowed to intervene.

6The question of what the union did or did not do on behalf of the applicant is a question of fact that may have to be determined if this Application proceeds to hearing.

7Where a human rights dispute arises in a workplace, the applicant is represented by a union and the dispute deals with terms or conditions of the applicant’s work, the union is presumed to have an interest in the dispute and the right to participate in the application (see the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Intervention by a Bargaining Agent).

8The presumption applies here because the applicant is represented by the union and the dispute in this Application centers around terms and conditions of the applicant’s work. The applicant has not rebutted the presumption because, on the facts of this particular case, her own submissions acknowledge that the union had a role to play in advocating on her behalf and did in fact play some role in that regard (even if she was not satisfied with the result). The request to intervene is granted.

order

9The union’s request to intervene is granted. The scope of the union’s participation is to be determined by the adjudicator assigned to conduct the mediation of this Application.