Melissa Woolcock v. Kaiser Aluminum Canada Limited, 2014 HRTO 88

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melissa Woolcock Applicant

-and-

Kaiser Aluminum Canada Limited Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: January 21, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 88 Indexed as: Woolcock v. Kaiser Aluminum Canada Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Melissa Woolcock, Applicant Paul Brooks, Counsel

Kaiser Aluminum Canada Limited, Respondent Daniel Leone, Counsel

United Steelworkers, Affected Party Katrina Peddle, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). In her Application she noted that the facts of the Application also formed part of one or more grievances filed by her union, the United Steelworkers.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer dated November 25, 2013. In the Notice it sought the parties’ and the union’s submissions about the appropriateness of deferring the Application. The parties and the union all filed submissions addressing this issue.

3Both the respondent and the union submitted that the Tribunal should defer the Application because the applicant’s grievance was scheduled for hearing before Arbitrator Jules Bloch on September 25, 2013. They submitted that Arbitrator Bloch remained seized pursuant to a subsequent order he issued. They further submitted that a conference call was being held on December 23, 2013 to set another hearing date and to address an outstanding issue pursuant to Arbitrator’s Bloch’s order.

4The applicant filed submissions opposing the deferral and citing, amongst other reasons, that her grievance had been subject to inordinate delay.

5By CAD dated January 10, 2014, the Tribunal requested that the parties provide an update about the December 23, 2013 call with Arbitrator Bloch. Specifically, the Tribunal requested that the parties advise whether another hearing date had been scheduled, and if so when.

6In response to this CAD, the respondent and the union advised that the parties have agreed to have Arbitrator Barton hear the grievance on February 12, 2014.

analysis

7The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues.

8In this case, it is apparent that there is an overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the applicant’s grievance(s). In light of the correspondence filed by the respondent and union in response to the Tribunal’s CAD, I am satisfied that the applicant’s grievance is proceeding before Arbitartor Barton in February 2014. I. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding in this matter.

9The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the grievance proceedings. In particular, the parties should note that a request to proceed with the Application would have to be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the grievance proceeding. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca under “Law, Rules and Policies”.

Order

10The Application will be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

11I am not seized with this matter.