HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Chris-Ann Bradshaw
Applicant
-and-
Complex Services Inc. and Unifor
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Bradshaw v. Complex Services Inc.
APPEARANCES
Chris-Ann Bradshaw, Applicant
Self-represented
Complex Services Inc., Respondent
Paul Pingue, Counsel
OPSEU, Respondent
David Wright, Counsel
Unifor, Respondent
Piper Henderson, Counsel
1These Applications allege discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The conflict underlying the applicant’s Applications to this Tribunal has been going on for many years. There have been a large number of grievances filed over this time and the Applications have been deferred pending the conclusion of those grievances and other related proceedings.
3The Applications name OPSEU and Unifor. Until August 2012, OPSEU was the bargaining unit. The CAW (now Unifor) then became the bargaining agent.
THE TRANSITION APPLICATIONS
4The process at this Tribunal started with two complaints the applicant filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in September 2007. Those two complaints were eventually referred to the Tribunal under section 53 of the Code under the “transition” provisions resulting from the 2008 amendments to the Code.
5At the time the Applications were filed with the Tribunal, the applicant was represented by counsel. When the Applications were filed, the applicant requested that the two Applications be processed and heard together.
6One of the complaints concerned the applicant’s employer, Complex Services Inc. and the other concerned her union, which was then OPSEU.
7In the transition Application involving her employer, the applicant stated that she had a disability that was accommodated by the employer until 2006. She alleged that at that time, the employer began to reprise against her following her involvement in the collective bargaining process and following her involvement as a witness to alleged money mishandling. She alleged that after this, the employer failed to properly accommodate her disability and instead she was harassed.
8The applicant filed a number of grievances through her union OPSEU concerning the alleged failure to accommodate and the alleged harassment.
9The Transition Application concerning OPSEU alleged that the union failed to properly process the grievances and also failed to properly be involved in her attempts to have her disability properly accommodated by the employer. In her Application, the applicant indicated that she did not feel that the union had treated her differently as she believed that every member of the Local was not being adequately represented. At the time the Transition Application against the union was filed, the applicant had also filed a Duty of Fair Representation complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
10The Transition Applications were deferred by the Tribunal pending the completion of the other proceedings related to them.
GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS
11In 2011, an Arbitration Board chaired by Arbitrator G. Surdykowski convened to deal with grievances brought forward by the union on the applicant's behalf and with a grievance against the applicant, filed by the employer. Following a number of proceedings, the Arbitration Board issued its decision in February 2012. The decision dismissed all the grievances except for one aspect of the employer’s grievance. That aspect concerned a dispute about whether an Independent Medical Review was appropriate. The Board determined that it was reasonable for the employer to ask for an Independent Medical Review and unreasonable for the applicant to refuse to allow her medical information to be used for the purpose of the Review. The Board further determined that Dr. Hy Bloom was an appropriate doctor to conduct the Medical Review and that the