Taylor v. Hitachi Construction Truck Manufacturing Ltd., 2015 HRTO 537

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Susan Taylor

Applicant

-and-

Hitachi Construction Truck Manufacturing Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: April 27, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 537 Indexed as: Taylor v. Hitachi Construction Truck Manufacturing Ltd.

1This Application filed on May 20, 2014, alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Response was filed on February 4, 2015. In the Response, the respondent made a request that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of grievances filed by the applicant’s union, Unifor Local 1917 (the “Union”). The respondent alleges that the Union has filed a grievance alleging unjust discipline of the applicant and a grievance alleging that the applicant was not properly reimbursed for tuition expenses. The respondent also alleges that the Union has filed a grievance with respect to another worker for discipline imposed on him as a result of the same altercation that resulted in the applicant’s discipline and is a subject of this Application.

3The respondent submits that the facts of the grievances and the legal issues to be determined in the grievances overlap with the facts and issues raised in this Application.

4The respondent submits that many of the issues raised in this Application could be resolved by the grievances and that there is potential for inconsistent findings and duplication of remedies if this Application and the grievances were allowed to proceed concurrently.

5The applicant and the Union state that the applicant’s discipline grievance is being held in abeyance until this Application is resolved. The applicant submits that the other worker’s grievance is not linked to her Application. All parties agree that the issues to be determined in the tuition grievance are completely different from the issues to be determined in this Application.

6On March 11, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) directing the parties to provide more information to clarify the status of the grievances.

7In accordance with the directions of the CAD, updates on the status of the grievances were provided to the Tribunal.

8The applicant and the Union maintain that the applicant’s discipline grievance will be held in abeyance until the completion of this Application. The respondent submits that the collective agreement does not allow the Union to make a unilateral decision that a grievance will be held in abeyance. The other worker’s grievance will be heard on June 9 and 11, 2015. The respondent submits that from a perspective of good labour relations and administrative efficiencies it would be best to have the grievances of the applicant and the other worker heard together before the same arbitrator and prior to the continuation of the Tribunal proceeding since the grievances and the basis for this Application arise out of the same incident.

9The respondent submits that one of the issues to be determined in the grievance arbitrations is whether the other worker was harassing the applicant. Since this is also an issue to be determined in this Application, the respondent submits that there is potential for inconsistent findings should the arbitrations and this Application be allowed to proceed concurrently.

ANALYSIS

10Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. In considering whether to defer an application, the Tribunal will look at the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding and whether it would be fair to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

11It would appear that there is a significant degree of overlap between the facts and issues in this Application and grievances of the applicant and the other worker. It also appears that there is potential that the applicant’s grievance will be heard together with the other worker’s grievance. Whether the two grievances are heard together or not, should one or both proceed to arbitration, the arbitrator will have before him or her the allegation of harassment. The Tribunal would engage in a similar inquiry in order to determine whether the applicant experienced discrimination in the workplace. If the two proceedings were allowed to proceed concurrently, there is a real risk of inconsistent findings on the same issues.

12For these reasons the Application is deferred.

13The Tribunal’s Rule 14 sets out the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of another proceeding.

14I am not seized of this matter.