Settlement constituted full resolve of all matters; employer claimed issues with process
A worker’s discrimination complaint after her union reached a settlement agreement for a termination grievance is an abuse of process, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
The worker was employed with General Motors of Canada (GMC) at one of its facilities in Ontario since 1988. GMC terminated her employment on May 31, 2018.
Following the worker’s termination, the union filed a grievance on her behalf. They went through the grievance process and the union entered into a settlement with GMC.
Under the settlement, the union agreed that the worker would apply to retire from GMC effective Aug. 1, 2018, and GMC would reinstate her to “layoff” status for the sole purpose of accruing pension service credits to Aug. 1, during which time the company would top up supplemental unemployment benefits. That would give her 30 years of service and allow for the company’s “30 and out” pension.
The worker would also remain eligible for post-retirement benefits.
Settlement agreement
The settlement stated that it constituted “a full and final resolve of all matters” relating to the grievance and the union agreed to withdraw the grievance. The settlement also stipulated that GMC and its officers and employees were “released and forever discharged from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, demands and proceedings of whatever kind for damages, indemnity, costs, compensation or any other remedy which the [worker] or the [worker’s] heirs, administrator or assigns had, may now have, or may have in the future.”
However, the worker subsequently filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment based on disability and sex, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.
GMC countered that the settlement barred any proceeding against it arising out of the worker’s employment or termination of employment, including any under the code. It applied to dismiss the worker’s application as an abuse of process and because of the signed settlement agreement.
The tribunal noted that pursuing a human rights application after signing a full and final release may constitute an abuse of process and that such applications should be dismissed in those circumstances, as had been established in previous decisions. It also observed that, in a unionized workplace, the employer is required to negotiate with the union as the legal representative of the employee, and the union has a duty of fair representation. The validity and binding nature of settlements entered into by the union on behalf of the employee don’t require the employee’s personal signature.
Labour relations regime
Given the principles of the labour relations process and the union’s role as employee representative, if the worker was dissatisfied with the settlement, then the appropriate recourse was to challenge the settlement within the labour relations regime, said the tribunal, noting that no evidence was provided to suggest that the worker had pursued such a challenge.
The Tribunal adopted the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada in Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, 2021 SCC 42, regarding the duties and obligations of unions and their members, and found that the settlement was valid and binding on the worker. Since the settlement constituted a complete bar to the continuation of the worker’s human rights application, allowing it to proceed would be an abuse of process, the tribunal said.
The application was dismissed. See Pellarin v. General Motors of Canada Company, 2025 HRTO 1389.
