In deciding whether to launch and then pursue a grievance involving the selection of a candidate for a position, unions often need to have information about the selection process and how the grievor, ie the unsuccessful applicant, fared compared with the other applicants, and in particular the successful applicant.
Employers usually resist disclosing this information on the basis of privacy concerns.
There is a very useful decision issued in 2007 by Arbitrator Jim Dorsey that sets out the principles that apply in these situations. The case is, Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union v.Coast Mountain Bus Co. (Disclosure of Personal Information Grievance)[2007] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 172, 165 L.A.C. (4th) 141.
Dorsey writes:
129 I have concluded the personal information to be disclosed to meet the union's purpose of en-suring the Employer's hiring decision complies with the collective agreement is all personal infor-mation in the complete "applications", as determined above, of the successful candidate and union members except (1) personal information not related to an applicant's ability to perform the job or seniority and (2) the limited class of information that qualifies as a personal identifier described above.
133 The information typically collected that is not to be disclosed in order to minimize intrusions into the personal lives of individual applicants is all applications of unsuccessful applicants who are not union members and any personal identifiers of all applicants as described above.
134 Beyond this information, I agree with the employer that the information typically collected that is not related to the ability to perform the vacant job or to the applicants' seniority will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis with the employer assuming the burden that information it determines at the time of disclosure is not related to ability or seniority is information it has not and will not rely on to support its selection decision.
In my older posts, you will find reference to an LRB decision where the Board ruled that an employer had to provide to the union a list of employees and their home address and home telephone number in order for the union to carry out its statutory obligations. In P. Sun's Enterprises (Vancouver) Ltd. (Hotel Grand Pacific), BCLRB No. B301/2003. The Board was of the view that the in order to to represent its members its members a union has to have the ability to communicate with them. Where it is relatively easy and inexpensive for an employer to provide the information requested and where the only reason for denying the information is concern about employee privacy, an employer must provide that information otherwise it risks committing an unfair labour practice. Note that there is no obligation to provide the information in any particular form. In other words one cannot insist that the information be provided in an electronic form, for example.
For more information about employee personal information and obligations under BC privacy legislation, check out the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner website at: http://www.oipc.bc.ca
Employers usually resist disclosing this information on the basis of privacy concerns.
There is a very useful decision issued in 2007 by Arbitrator Jim Dorsey that sets out the principles that apply in these situations. The case is, Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union v.Coast Mountain Bus Co. (Disclosure of Personal Information Grievance)[2007] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 172, 165 L.A.C. (4th) 141.
Dorsey writes:
129 I have concluded the personal information to be disclosed to meet the union's purpose of en-suring the Employer's hiring decision complies with the collective agreement is all personal infor-mation in the complete "applications", as determined above, of the successful candidate and union members except (1) personal information not related to an applicant's ability to perform the job or seniority and (2) the limited class of information that qualifies as a personal identifier described above.
133 The information typically collected that is not to be disclosed in order to minimize intrusions into the personal lives of individual applicants is all applications of unsuccessful applicants who are not union members and any personal identifiers of all applicants as described above.
134 Beyond this information, I agree with the employer that the information typically collected that is not related to the ability to perform the vacant job or to the applicants' seniority will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis with the employer assuming the burden that information it determines at the time of disclosure is not related to ability or seniority is information it has not and will not rely on to support its selection decision.
In my older posts, you will find reference to an LRB decision where the Board ruled that an employer had to provide to the union a list of employees and their home address and home telephone number in order for the union to carry out its statutory obligations. In P. Sun's Enterprises (Vancouver) Ltd. (Hotel Grand Pacific), BCLRB No. B301/2003. The Board was of the view that the in order to to represent its members its members a union has to have the ability to communicate with them. Where it is relatively easy and inexpensive for an employer to provide the information requested and where the only reason for denying the information is concern about employee privacy, an employer must provide that information otherwise it risks committing an unfair labour practice. Note that there is no obligation to provide the information in any particular form. In other words one cannot insist that the information be provided in an electronic form, for example.
For more information about employee personal information and obligations under BC privacy legislation, check out the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner website at: http://www.oipc.bc.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment