King v. Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd., 2016 HRTO 3

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Linus King

Applicant

-and-

Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd.

Respondent

-and-

Unifor, Local 333/Canada

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: January 4, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 3 Indexed as: King v. Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Linus King, Applicant Self-represented

Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd, Respondent Sonia Regenbogen, Counsel

Unifor Local 333 / Canada, Intervenor J. James Nyman, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, family status, marital status and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On September 4, 2015, the Tribunal received a completed Notice of Intervention by the Intervenor. In accordance with Rule 11.14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal issued a letter on September 4, 2015 confirming the Intervenor’s status as an Intervenor in this Application.

3The Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to preclude the Intervenor from intervening. The respondent’s position is that the Intervenor should not be precluded.

4The Intervenor is the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent and the applicant is a bargaining unit member. It would appear that many of the allegations raised in the Application relate to circumstances that formed the subject matter of grievances filed by the applicant pursuant to the Collective Agreement. In my view, the Intervenor clearly has an interest in the Application.

5As stated by this Tribunal in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131 at para. 13:

A union or association nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in a bargaining unit it represents when the application alleges discrimination in employment. Absent exceptional circumstances, the applicant’s bargaining agent will be granted intervention status in the Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.

6Accordingly, I find that it is inappropriate to preclude the Intervenor from intervening in the Application.

7It would appear from the applicant’s submissions that he is under the impression that the Intervenor is seeking to represent him in the Application. That is not the case. The Intervenor does not seek to represent the applicant. The purpose of its intervention is set out in the Notice of Intervention and as stated in the Tribunal’s September 4, 2015, letter confirming the intervention: “The scope of the bargaining agent’s involvement will be determined by the adjudicator conducting the mediation or hearing”.

8The applicant’s request to preclude the Intervenor from intervening in the Application is denied.