Mukanduri v. Compass Group Eurest Services, 2015 HRTO 1451

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Winston Mukanduri

Applicant

-and-

Compass Group Eurest Services and Magali Lucio

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: October 29, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1451 Indexed as: Mukanduri v. Compass Group Eurest Services

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability and gender expression contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The respondents have not yet been directed to file Responses.

3This Interim Decision addresses whether the Application should be deferred pending conclusion of the grievance process and the applicant’s request to amend his Application.

Should the application be deferred?

4The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties and LIUNA Local 183, the applicant’s bargaining agent in the workplace (“the union”), seeking submissions about deferring the Application pending conclusion of another legal proceeding, the grievance process. The union sent a letter providing information about the status of the applicant’s grievances and advising that an arbitration date had been scheduled for August 5, 2015. Subsequent to the union’s letter, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal advising that there was no arbitration scheduled for one of his grievances, and that a grievance had been withdrawn. The respondents did not file any submissions.

5The Tribunal issued a Registrar’s letter dated September 10, 2015, directing the respondents and the union to respond to the applicant’s submissions that his grievance was withdrawn. The union responded, but the respondents did not.

6The union advised that on or about August 4, 2015, the applicant’s termination grievance was withdrawn, at the request of the applicant. It further advised that one grievance from August 2014 was settled and another from November 2014 was not advanced at the request of the grievance due to his termination.

7As the grievances have been withdrawn, settled, or are not being pursued in the grievance process, the Application will not be deferred and will proceed through the Tribunal’s process.

the applicant’s request to amend his application

8The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to amend his Application. He emailed this on September 19, 2015, without any attachment, and on October 4, 2015 with an attachment, titled “Schedule ‘A’”.

9The respondents and the union have not filed Responses to the RFOP.

10Given the early stages of this Application, in that the respondents have not yet filed a Response, the applicant’s request to amend his Application in the form of Schedule “A” to his RFOP is granted.

next steps

11The respondents are directed to file Responses to the amended Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

12Rule 11.14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that a bargaining agent that represents an applicant in an employment relationship may assert the right to intervene in an Application by completing and filing a Notice of Intervention by Bargaining Agent (Form 28). Form 28 requires the bargaining agent to provide information about the role it wants to play in the proceeding. See instructions on the form and the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Intervention by a Bargaining Agent available at www.sjto.gov.on.ca. Following receipt of the Form 28, the Tribunal’s Registrar will issue a letter confirming the bargaining agent’s intervention. If a Form 28 is not filed, the union will receive no further communication from the Tribunal.

13I am not seized with this matter.