Chowdhury v. Hilton Toronto, 2015 HRTO 1682

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abul Chowdhury Applicant

-and-

Hilton Toronto Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 14, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1682 Indexed as: Chowdhury v. Hilton Toronto

1This is an Application filed on November 18, 2014 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, creed and reprisal.

2In Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 247 issued on February 27, 2015 this Application was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration commenced by the applicant and his bargaining agent.

3The applicant has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking the reactivation of the Application citing concerns with the conduct of the arbitration and the delay in getting to hearing. The respondent is opposed to the Request arguing that the arbitration has commenced and that three further dates have been set in mid 2016.

4In my view it would not be appropriate to reactivate this Application. As the Tribunal concluded when deferring the Application it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and issues raised in the Application and those referred to in the three grievances the applicant has commenced. The Tribunal was satisfied that the circumstances of the present case did not justify a departure from the Tribunal’s normal approach.

5The applicant complains about the slow progress of the arbitration. The delay to date is not sufficiently egregious to justify requiring the parties to participate in two concurrent proceedings dealing with essentially the same issues.

6The applicant also complains about the grievance process as he experienced on the first day of the hearing wherein the parties, as they often do, engaged in settlement discussion with the participation of the arbitrator. What the applicant describes is largely privileged and should not have been revealed but in any case did not appear to be out of the norm for the first day of an arbitration.

7As the Tribunal indicated in its prior Interim Decision in this case the applicant may be frustrated with the process but he engaged in the arbitration process and nothing in his submissions is sufficient to overcome the need to avoid concurrent proceedings about the same issues potentially leading to different and potentially contradictory results.

8For these reasons the Application will continue to be deferred until the arbitration proceeding has concluded.

9The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention again to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.

10I am not seized of this case.