Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

The Complex Relationship Between Discrimination Grievances and Human Rights Complaints

by David Doorey February 26, 2013
written by David Doorey February 26, 2013

As we learn in Employment Law courses, work law is complicated by overlapping legal regimes.  For example, a single decision by an employer to dismiss an employee can give rise to legal proceedings under the common law (such as a tort action), grievance arbitration if the employee is unionized, as well as any HR-tribunal3number of employment-related statutes.  Sometimes, an employee is precluded from pursuing one legal route if they have initiated a proceeding in another legal venue.  In other instances, there is nothing preventing an employee from pursuing multiple proceedings at once.
Discrimination issues can give rise to overlapping regime issues.  In a unionized workplace, the most common route for employees to seek redress for perceived wrongs is grievance arbitration under the collective agreement’s grievance and arbitration provisions.  Many collective include prohibitions on discrimination, so an employee who believes she has been discriminated against by her employer can file a grievance.  The employee can also file a human rights complaint alleging a violation of Section 5 of the Human Rights Code.
What happens when there is both a grievance and a human rights complaint challenging the same employer actions?
In the simplest scenario, the union brings the grievance to arbitration, argues the human rights issue, and the arbitrator decides whether there was discrimination.  In that case, the Human Rights Code provides an answer.  It’s found in Section 45.1:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

If the arbitrator deals head-on with the subject of the human rights complaint, then the Human Rights Tribunal will probably dismiss the human rights complaint pursuant to its s. 45.1 power.  Although sometimes it is not clear whether another legal proceeding has in fact dealt with the human rights issues, and I’ve noted before some odd rulings in this regard.
Things are more complicated when the grievance doesn’t make it to arbitration because either: (1) the union withdraws the grievance because it thinks it has no merit; or (2) the union settles the grievance before it makes it before an arbitrator.
These two issues arise because, under most collective agreements,  the union has ‘carriage’ of a grievance.  That means that the union ‘owns’ the grievance, not the employee (grievor).  Therefore, the union is within its legal rights to drop or settle a grievance, even if the employee (grievor) would like to proceed to arbitration.  Unions act as gatekeepers to the very expensive arbitration process, weeding out grievances that lack merit or can be settled on reasonable terms.

The Tribunal has said that a settlement of a grievance is a “proceeding” under s. 45.1. (See Dunn v. S.S.M.)  But when does a settlement “appropriately deal” with a human rights dispute?

Let’s review the various scenarios.
If the union settles a grievance, the settlement resolves the human rights issue, AND the employee signed the settlement, then the Human Rights Tribunal will probably find that the human rights issue has been “appropriately dealt with”, and dismiss the complaint. That’s easy.
If the union drops the grievance, because it thinks it has no merit, then the complaint has NOT be appropriately dealt with in another forum.  It never reached an adjudicator, and it wasn’t resolved in a settlement.  That’s what happend in a recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal called Davila v. McKesson Canada  The employer tried to argue that the withdrawal of a discrimination grievance by the union should cause the Tribunal to dismiss the employee’s human rights complaint.  The Tribunal rejected this argument:

 There is no dispute that the applicant’s union withdrew her two grievances based on its opinion that the grievances were unlikely to be successful at arbitration. It is also not disputed that the grievances were withdrawn on a “without prejudice or precedent basis”. Consequently, there was no formal resolution of the grievances by way of a full and final settlement or arbitration decision. As such, I find that no “proceedings” have been completed which have dealt with the substance of the Application.

In Davila, the withdwawal of the grievance was made ‘without prejudice’.  Do you think that this matters?  What if the union just simply withdraws the grievance?  Do you think that would “appropriately deal with” the human rights issues?
If the union settles the grievance over the employee’s objections and without their consent, which a union can do if it has carriage of the grievance, then the issue is more muddy. In some cases, the Tribunal has ruled that in such a case, the matter has not been ‘dealt with’, and allowed the human rights complaint to proceed.  For example, see Lumley v. Trillium Lakehead, where the Tribunal said this:

To find a settlement has appropriately dealt with the substance of a human rights application, the applicant must be a party to that agreement.  To put it simply, the applicant must receive some benefit from the agreement.  How else can it be said that the applicant’s application has been dealt with under the terms of the settlement?  To hold otherwise would allow employers and unions to potentially bar human rights complaints on the basis of a settlement between them.

See also Lemiuex v. Guelph Hospital, where a settlement of a grievance granting the employee monetary compensation did not bar the human rights complaint, because the employee had objected to the settlement.
In other cases, the Tribunal has dismissed the human rights complaint, finding that the settlement between the union and the employer ‘dealt with’ the human rights issues, even though the employee did not agree to the settlement.  If the employee receives a benefit from the settlement, and accepts the benefit, then it is more likely that the Tribunal will find that the employee implicitly agreed to the settlement.  So, in Rysinski v. Aecon Industries, the union settled a grievance without the employee’s consent on terms that gave the employee monetary damages, which the employee accepted.  The Tribunal ruled that the settlement dealt with the human rights issues.  A similar result followed in Bhandari v. Ontario (employee derived a ‘significant benefit’ from the grievance settlement, even though he did not consent to the settlement).
Finally, what happens if an arbitrator and the Human Rights Tribunal come to different conclusions about whether an employer has violated the law by dismissing an employee?  That possibility arises because an arbitrator could uphold a discharge of an employee without adequately dealing with the human rights components of the case.  If that happens, it is theoretically possible that an arbitrator could find that a dismissal does not breach of the collective agreement, while the Human Rights Tribunal rules that the discharge violated the Human Rights Code.   That scenario arose in a case called Barker v. SEIU, which I described a while back.
Clear as mud?
Questions for Discussion

Do you think that an employee should be denied the right to go forward with a human rights complaint against her employer if her union has settled or withdrawn her grievance alleging a human rights violation?

Are you concerned about a union being able to deny a worker the ability to proceed with a human rights complaint?

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Is a Notice of Termination Contract Term that COULD Violate the ESA Void?: Part Deux
next post
Scary Stuff for HRM Folks in Employment Law

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.