Bradshaw v. Complex Services Inc., 2015 HRTO 755

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chris-Ann Bradshaw

Applicant

-and-

Complex Services Inc. and Unifor

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: June 9, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 755

Indexed as: Bradshaw v. Complex Services Inc.

1This Reconsideration Decision is further to an Interim Decision dated March 17, 2015. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the Interim Decision and the respondent Unifor seeks clarification of issues dealt with in the Interim Decision.

2The Interim Decision followed a summary hearing which was scheduled to deal with a number of issues, including the question of whether some or all of the allegations in the Applications the applicant has filed should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. A related issue was the applicant’s request to amend some of the Applications to include allegations about events in 2012 and the termination of her employment by the corporate respondent.

3In the Interim Decision, I allowed the applicant’s request that she be permitted to amend her Applications to include allegations about events in 2012 leading to the termination of her employment. I dismissed most of the allegations in the Applications against the union respondents on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that they could succeed. An exception to this is the applicant's allegations about the termination of her employment which are not dismissed as against Unifor. With respect to the corporate respondent, I noted that there is a question about whether the allegations relating to the period before 2012 were appropriately dealt with by labour arbitration proceedings.

4After the Interim Decision was issued, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration. The union respondent Unifor asked for clarification of the Interim Decision.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

5Much of the applicant’s request for reconsideration concerns her opinion that her allegations relating to her employment have not been appropriately dealt with by the labour arbitration proceedings.

6As stated in the Interim Decision, this issue remains to be determined and will be addressed at a future hearing at this Tribunal.

7The applicant restates her position that OPSEU and Unifor discriminated against her by failing to adequately and appropriately pursue her grievances and complaints in a timely manner. The Interim Decision noted that this alone is not a basis for proceeding against a union under the Code and dismissed those allegations at paragraph 29. The applicant further re-states her position that union counsel discriminated against her in respect of an arbitration process in September and October 2011, when he allegedly questions her capacity, asked for medical information about her capacity, and canceled scheduled arbitration dates. These allegations were dismissed at paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Interim Decision.

8In the Request to Reconsider, the applicant states that there are some factual errors about her allegations concerning union counsel. She clarifies that she did object to the request that an arbitration date be canceled; that Mr. Brewin never said that he wanted to speak to her doctor; and that she believes that the union and the employer misled the arbitrator into thinking that certain issues would be dealt with by a different arbitrator.

9To the extent that the Request to Reconsider identifies factual errors in the Interim Decision, it does not appear that the conclusions would be any different if the errors were corrected. The applicant confirms that her allegations about the union counsel and the events related to the arbitrations are that the union unreasonably failed to properly and appropriately further her grievances and complaints.

CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

10Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.

11Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

26.5. A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that

(a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

(b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

(c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

(d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

12I find that the applicant has not identified any of these factors in the present case and conclude that there is no basis to reconsider the Interim Decision at this time.

UNIFOR’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

13Unifor’s request for clarification seems to arise from the applicant's request to amend her Applications to include allegations about events in 2012 and events related to the termination of her employment.

14The applicant filed the request to amend in respect of 2012-11755-I and 2012-11757-I. As noted, the applicant’s request to amend these Applications was granted in the Interim Decision.

15Unifor maintains that it was not previously a party to the Application in file 2012-11757-I. It is concerned that by granting the applicant’s request to amend that Application, it has now become a respondent to that Application. It says that it has never received a copy of that Application and asks that it now be provided with a copy if in fact it is a respondent. Unifor asserts that it is confused about what allegations remain against it.

16The applicant's request to amend the Applications concerned allegations about events from 2012 to the time of the termination of her employment in November 2013, and the events that followed that termination.

17The Interim Decision dismissed the allegations against Unifor except for the allegations relating to the termination of the applicant’s employment and the events following. That conclusion is re-stated here and I confirm that the only allegations that Unifor need respond to are the allegations relating to the termination of the applicant’s employment and the events that followed that termination.

18Since these allegations have been framed as an amendment to Applications in files 2012-11757-I and 2012-11755, and since Unifor was not previously a party to 2012-11757-I, the Tribunal will send a copy of the relevant documents in file 2012-11757-I to Unifor.

19The Tribunal will continue to schedule the one-day hearing directed in the Interim Decision.