Bartley v. Camino Modular Systems Inc., 2016 HRTO 505

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Patrick Bartley

Applicant

-and-

Camino Modular Systems Inc.

Respondent

-and-

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: April 19, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 505 Indexed as: Bartley v. Camino Modular Systems Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Patrick Bartley, Applicant David P. Jacobs, Counsel

Camino Modular Systems Inc., Respondent Alex Lemoine, Counsel

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Intervenor David P. Jacobs, Counsel

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

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s Request for an Order During Proceedings (”Request”). On January 15, 2016 the Carpenters and Allied workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“the union”) filed a Notice of Intervention. In its Request the respondent seeks an order prohibiting the union from intervening in this Application, or in the alternative, that the union’s participation be limited to written submissions at the hearing on matters of which the union has particular knowledge. The respondent also requests that it be provided an opportunity to make a full and considered response or reply to any submissions made by the union.

3The applicant supports the union’s intervention in this proceeding.

4The respondent opposes the intervention, indicating that the union has no significant interest in the Application or its outcome, that is has no unique perspective or important information that cannot be adduced without its intervention, that the outcome of the Application is unlikely to have any significant implications for the union or its members and that the unions intervention would cause undue delay, prejudice and disruption.

5The union submits that it has a direct and significant interest in the Application. Among other things, the union has an interest in ensuring that all of its members that are employed by the respondent are treated in accordance with the Collective Agreement, including sections of the Collective Agreement that address discrimination and harassment in the workplace, as well as the Code.

6Moreover, the respondent raises issues and makes allegations regarding the union. In particular, the respondent refers to conversations that took place between it and representatives of the union. The applicant was not a party to these conversations and accordingly these issues and allegations are not matters that are within the Applicant’s knowledge, but rather the union’s.

7The position of the Tribunal is set out in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 1231:

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 Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.

8In my view, the respondent has not pointed to exceptional circumstances that would militate against the union’s intervention in this proceeding. I agree that the union has the requisite interest in this Application to support its intervention.

9In regard to the scope of the union’s intervention, this is best left to the adjudicator conducting the mediation or hearing.

10I am not seized.