Lubinovic v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2014 HRTO 888

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zineta Lubinovic Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Susan Granger, Louise Shannon and Kelly Bethune Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1750 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: June 17, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 888 Indexed as: Lubinovic v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

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 and reprisal.

2In the workplace, the applicant is represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1750 (“the union”). The union filed a Request to Intervene on May 17, 2013. The union also filed grievances on the applicant’s behalf, which proceeded through the grievance procedure and were scheduled for arbitration.

3By letter dated July 26, 2013, the Tribunal deferred the Application, on consent, pending the resolution of a grievance proceeding.

4The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to re-activate her Application. She submitted that the grievance proceeding was over as a Vice-chair from the Grievance Settlement Board (“GSB”) issued a decision. She submitted that the GSB decision determined a number of allegations from her Application, but not all of them, and that those that were not addressed by the GSB decision should continue before the Tribunal.

5The respondents filed a Response to RFOP opposing the re-activation and submitting that the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code. The respondents submitted that the GSB decision addressed all of the applicant’s allegations.

the applicant’s request to re-activate

6The applicant’s request to re-activate is granted. The applicant’s request was made in a timely manner after the GSB decision was issued. The respondents’ section 45.1 of the Code request will be addressed with the parties in separate communications from the Tribunal.

the union’s request to intervene

7Neither the applicant nor the respondents filed a response to the union’s request to intervene, and the time for doing so has elapsed.

8The 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 having a bargaining relationship with the respondent employer, the union represented the applicant during the grievance proceeding, including at the GSB arbitration.

9As such, the union has an interest in this proceeding. It is added as an intervenor and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

10I am not seized with this matter.