Daniel Pennarun v. FCA Canada Inc., 2016 HRTO 754

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Pennarun

Applicant

-and-

FCA Canada Inc., Unifor Canada 1285,

Rob Gardiner, Leon Rideout and Ardis Snow

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: June 2, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 754

Indexed as: Pennarun v. FCA Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Daniel Pennarun, Applicant

Self-represented

FCA Canada Inc. and Rob Gardiner, Respondents

Clifford Hart, Counsel

Unifor Canada 1285, Leon Rideout and Ardis Snow, Respondents

No submissions filed

1This Application alleges 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”). In Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1443, this Application was deferred pending completion of the policy grievance process. An individual grievance that the applicant filed was put on hold pending completion of the policy grievance.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to re-activate his Application in light of the resolution of the policy grievance.

3The respondents FCA Canada Inc. and Rob Gardiner filed a Response to the RFOP. They agree that the policy grievance has been resolved, but submit that the individual grievance, which factually overlaps with the Application, remains outstanding. They submit that the grievance was advanced to a third step grievance meeting on April 15, 2016, which did not resolve the grievance, and that it will be advanced to the fourth stage of the grievance meeting. If it remains outstanding after the fourth stage, it can be advanced to arbitration.

4The respondents Unifor Canada 1285, Leon Rideout and Ardis Snow did not file a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has elapsed.

analysis

5The individual grievance was filed approximately one month before the Application was filed. It alleges that the organizational respondent failed to accommodate him, which is the issue raised in his Application.

6Given the parallel issues, the Application will continue to be deferred pending conclusion of the individual grievance or arbitration process. Specifically, this means until the individual grievance has been resolved, withdrawn, or concluded by the arbitration process. If the applicant believes, on conclusion of the grievance or arbitration process, that his human rights issues have not been adequately addressed, he may ask to have his Application brought back on before the Tribunal.

7Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

8I am not seized with this matter.