Hanssan Arar v. Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 23

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hanssan Arar Applicant

-and-

Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited and Scott Duffy Respondents

-and-

Unifor Local 876 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: January 8, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 23 Indexed as: Arar v. Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hanssan Arar, Applicant Self-represented

Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited and Scott Duffy, Respondents No one appearing

Unifor Local 876, Intervenor Tom Rooke, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association because of ethnic origin, disability, gender identity and age.

2On October 31, 2014, the intervenor, Unifor Local 876, filed a Notice of Intervention by Bargaining Agent, pursuant to Rule 11.14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. On November 21, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an order removing the intervenor. The intervenor filed a Response to a Request for an Order on December 1, 2014. The respondents did not respond to the applicant’s request and the time for doing so has passed.

3The applicant takes the position that the intervenor union did not assist him when he was employed by the organizational respondent and, in any event, he was not employed long enough to become a member of the intervenor.

4The intervenor’s position is that it does not intend to participate actively in the Application unless the integrity of the intervenor or the collective agreement is challenged.

Analysis and Decision

5In Lopes v. Group G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd., 2014 HRTO 768, the Tribunal noted that the Tribunal’s jurisprudence acknowledges that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of one of its bargaining units about his or her employment and that, absent exceptional circumstances, will be granted intervenor status when requested. Rule 11.14 reflects this reality by allowing a bargaining agent to intervene simply by filing a Request (Form 28). While I appreciate that, from the applicant’s perspective, the intervenor seems to have little involvement in the dispute with the respondent, the applicant has requested reinstatement, which may affect the operation of the collective agreement in question. Consequently, I am satisfied that the intervenor should continue to participate in this Application.

6The extent to which the intervenor may participate in the hearing of this matter shall be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

Order

7The request to remove the intervenor is denied.

8I am not seized.