Tag: workplace privacy

System monitoring decision stresses employees’ informed choice

In December of last year, Arbitrator Abramsky upheld a grievance that challenged the reasonableness of system monitoring conducted by an employer, though only to the extent the employer’s workplace monitoring policy (which is required in Ontario) did not provide clear enough notice. She accepted the employer’s argument that employee personal use of workplace systems is a matter of informed choice, reasoning in part as follows:

The Union asserts that it is common for employees to check their personal emails while at work. I am sure that is true, but employees can choose how they send and receive personal emails while at work, and on what device. With knowledge of the Employer’s monitoring practices, an employee may make an informed choice. Having to use a personal device for personal emails may represent a change for some, it is not an undue burden. If an employee considers it to be so, however, they can choose to use the Employer’s equipment, WiFi or network, with the knowledge that the email may be monitored. Consequently, I am persuaded that the Employer’s EMP in regard to emails is a reasonable exercise of management rights, with one exception beyond clarifying how it determines if a private email pertains to Rideauwood.

Maintenance of network security is of utmost concern, and is supported by robust monitoring of employee system use. Most employers, however, allow personal use of their systems that attracts a limited expectation of privacy. So long this personal use is a privilege and not a right, the privacy interest associated with it cannot prevail over an employer’s interest in monitoring, and the provision of clear notice ought to be the only legal requirement for lawful monitoring. This decision supports this argument.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services, 2024 CanLII 120507 (ON LA).

BC arbitrator finds privacy violation arises out of employer investigation

On October 31, British Columbia labour arbitrator Chris Sullivan awarded $30,000 to a union based on a finding that an employer unnecessarily investigated statements made by a union president in a video that the union claimed to be confidential. He based this award on a breach of the anti-union discrimination provision in the Collective agreement, the union interference provision in the BC Labour Relations Code, and a breach of the BC Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The union posted the video on YouTube without password protection. The union president testified, “that he first attempted to use the private setting for posting videos to the website, but this proved difficult to use as he had to manually enter a great deal of information in order to utilize this setting.” He posted the video openly, but rendered it unsearchable, and posted a confidentiality warning on the YouTube account and embedded a confidentiality warning in the video. The latter warning stated, “[this] video content is considered confidential and intended solely for ATU members.”

A union member leaked the URL for the video to someone in management who did not wish to be identified, who in turn reported the video to another member of management, stating, “you should check this out, it goes against what you are trying to build at transit.” That manager used the URL to watch the video and make a copy, ultimately disciplining the president for what he said in the video (later settling for a without prejudice disciplinary withdrawal). When the union demanded the employer destroy its copy, the employer asserted that it had obtained the video from a union member and that it was searchable on YouTube, both proven to be incorrect.

The crux of Arbitrator Sullivan’s finding is that the employer had no basis for investigating. He said:

Mr. Henegar had received only the Post-it note, followed by a conversation, with a supervisor/manager of the Employer, who did not want their identity revealed. On its own terms, the Employer’s Harassment and Respectful Workplace Policy was not engaged against Mr. Neagu, as no formal complaint was ever made against him, nor was he provided with any details of a complaint including the identity of a complainant as is required by that Policy. Mr. Neagu’s comments as Local Union President in the YouTube Video did not warrant an Employer investigation on any reasonable basis.

The employer and union had agreed that the video contained the union president’s personal information, so it followed from the above finding that the employer had collected the video in breach of FIPPA given the collection was not “necessary.”

This was a debacle. If the employer had watched the video and stopped I suspect it would have been found to be blameless. (Recall that it withdrew its disciplinary charge in a without prejudice settlement that had a plainly prejudicial impact on the outcome.) There were also too many other bad facts that bore upon the employer, including the fact it did not (or felt it could not) disclose the identity of the management employee who raised the video as a concern, and the facts that showed its entire premise for proceeding with investigation and discipline was flawed – my reading of the facts, not that of Arbitrator Sullivan, who held that management’s assertions were intentionally dishonest.

I don’t like this privacy finding for two reasons. First, having not seen the video, I question whether a speech from a union president to union members contains the president’s personal information. Second, Arbitrator Sullivan affirmed the president’s expectation of privacy despite the president’s election not to secure the video through the best means possible. As those who follow this blog know, I’m a fan of using the waiver/abandonment doctrine to incentivize good security practices and hold users accountable for bad security practices. That was not done in this case, though Arbitrator Sullivan’s affirmation was obiter.

The damages award is large for a privacy case, but it was driven by a finding that the employer engaged in a serious interference with union rights.

Corporation of The District of West Vancouver v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 134, 2024 CanLII 124405 (BC LA)

New privacy framework for Charter-bound employers

I was up at the crack of dawn today to burn down to Cape May, New Jersey for the DeSatnick Foundation Paddle Around the Cape Race this Sunday. (It’s still not to late to donate.) I listened to the Supreme Court of Canada’s York Region District School Board decision between Allentown PA and the NJ border. It’s significant, but thankfully only in a technical sense – not changing the balance between employee privacy and management rights. I’ll explain.

Of course, this is the case about a series of “searches” conducted by a school principal in an attempt to manage a workplace called “toxic” by labour arbitrator Gail Misra, who held the principal’s searches were justified. I put “searches” in quotes because the term is a technical one in the section 8 Charter jurisprudence, which Arbitrator Misra referred to but didn’t apply very well. Any criminal lawyer or judge reading her decision would quickly pick out Arbitrator Mirsa’s jurisprudential flaws. These flaws are what ultimately led the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada to quash her decision.

Along the way the Court unanimously (and finally?) held that the Charter applies to school boards (Ontario ones, at least). It said, “Public education is inherently a governmental function. It has a unique constitutional quality, as exemplified by s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and by s. 23 of the Charter. Ontario public school boards are manifestations of government and, thus, they are subject to the Charter under Eldridge’s first branch.”

Given Charter application, the majority held that Arbitrator Misra erred by balancing interests under the privacy test long employed by arbitrators and endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Irving Pulp and Paper – a derivative of the famous KVP test. She was bound to apply the section 8 Charter framework, the majority said, and do so correctly.

So Charter-bound employers, like law enforcement, must not conduct unreasonable searches. The test is two part. There must be a “search,” which will only be so if there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” And then the search must be “reasonable.” This is a highly contextual test that encompasses a balancing of interests, and a labour arbitrators’ balancing will be subject to review on the correctness standard.

Non Charter-bound employers – like Irving – will continue to live under the balancing of interest test and KVP. As to whether that will result in different outcomes, the majority suggests it may not: “The existing arbitral jurisprudence on the “balancing of interests”, including the consideration of management rights under the terms of the collective agreement, may properly inform the balanced analysis.”

I’ve said here before that privacy law should be unified such that the concepts that bear upon section 8 analysis are used by labour arbitrators. This judgement grants my very wish. It should lend predictability to otherwise unpredictable balancing by labour arbitrators, as should correctness review. And although non Charter-bound employers will have a notionally different framework, I expect that arbitrators will strive for unification.

And there is nothing in the judgement that alters the management-employee balance or elevates workplace privacy rights. To the contrary, it erases a Court of Appeal for Ontario judgement that one could argue was too insensitive to the principal’s interest in dealing with a serious workplace problem.

This very short and informal post is made (that is plainly influenced by my one day vacation) is made strictly in my personal capacity.

York Region District School Board v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2024 SCC 22 (CanLII).

Nova Scotia arbitrator admits audio recording over union objection

On April 17, Nova Scotia labour arbitrator Augustus Richardson admitted audio recording evidence that a union objected to even though the employer failed to give proper notice of recording.

The grievors were correctional officers discharged for behaving offensively and unprofessionally in transporting an inmate to a hospital. A hospital social worker complained of misconduct that occurred in the hospital. This led the employer to speak with the inmate, who did not provide a statement, but said something – it’s unclear what – that led the employer to download and review audio-visual recordings from the vehicle the grievors used to transport the inmate.

The vehicle had visible cameras that faced its two inmate compartments, but the union and the grievors claimed they were unaware the cameras recorded audio. The employer had issued a bulletin about the cameras that explained that they recoded audio, but didn’t have a policy or post signage. Arbitrator Richardson heard evidence, and accepted that the grievors and the union were unaware.

Arbitrator Richardson nonetheless admitted the evidence. Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Syndicat des employé professionnels de l’Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and Alain Larocque 1993 CanLII 162 (SCC), [1993] 1 SCR 471, he held that declining to admit such central evidence would invite a breach of natural justice. Arbitrator Richardson also held that the employer’s access to and use of the evidence was not unreasonable, and was separate from the employer’s recording of the evidence (which the union had not grieved).

There are two points of significance in this case.

First, recording audio with video is risky because it captures private communications. Providing clear notice is important to protect against potential criminal liability (for breach of the Criminal Code wiretap prohibition), and also to avoid disputes like the one adjudicated by Arbitrator Richardson.

Second, Arbitrator Richardson’s approach to the union’s objection is to be preferred to any approach to the exclusion of evidence that does not consider and weigh the impact of exclusion on hearing fairness. He does not a say that a labour arbitrator has no jurisdiction to exclude evidence obtained in breach of privacy but, rather, says that such exclusion must be “appropriate” – i.e., not work an unfairness or bring the administration of (arbitral) justice into disrepute [my words].

Nova Scotia Government and General Employees’ Union v Department of Justice (Correctional Services), 2023 CanLII 31524 (NS LA).

Newfoundland court recognizes intrusion upon seclusion tort

In somewhat strange circumstances, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has recognized the intrusion upon seclusion privacy tort.

The Court made its recognition in deciding a procedural motion in a Municipal Elections Act appeal by two City of Mount Pearl councillors who were sanctioned for not disclosing a conflict of interest. The alleged conflict arose out of their discussions with the Town’s former CAO while he was on administrative leave and the subject of a harassment investigation.

The City had discovered the conflict after it seized the CAO’s work iPad, which was still sending snippets of messages from the CAO’s personal Facebook Messenger account to the iPad’s home screen. Staff from IT saw the troubling messages, gave the iPad to the Clerk who saw more troubling messages, and the City eventually downloaded the messages for its use as evidence. At some point later, the messages were leaked to the CBC.

Whether the common law right of action for intrusion upon seclusion exists in Newfoundland had not yet been determined but was certified as a common issue in Hynes v. Western Regional Integrated Health Authority, 2014 NLTD(G) 137. Here, the Court held that the province has “a common law tort for intrusion upon seclusion” and that it “coexists with rights created under the [Newfoundland and Labrador] Privacy Act.”

Not surprisingly, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Cole, the Court found a privacy expectation that warranted protection, though its analysis on this point bleeds into its finding that the City’s actions were “highly offensive.” It went on to exclude the messages from the appeal record on the basis of its procedural power.

I might have thought this was a closer case than the outcome suggests, but privacy is such a subjective concept that it’s hard to predict how a judge will view a matter. It’s also another case about using a work computer to access content in a private cloud account, which apparently touches a judicial nerve.

Hindsight is 20/20, but as the judge said, the City could have stopped once it viewed the snippets and used the observations made by IT and the Clerk to request access from the CAO (who was presumably still employed and with a duty to cooperate and who faced a possible adverse inference). I would be concerned about the potential destruction of evidence – all stored in the CAO controlled account – but (unfortunately) the Court did not consider this factor.

Power v. Mount Pearl (City), 2022 NLSC 129 (CanLII).

Location awareness technology on construction job site okay, says arbitrator

On January 14th, a British Columbia labour arbitrator dismissed an allegation that an employer breached British Columbia PIPA and the terms of a collective agreement by employing location awareness technology to manage employees on its construction job sites.

The employer used phone based technology to “manage and track […] employee attendance, including administering attendance requirements and payroll, and identifying and investigating inaccurate time keeping.” It adduced evidence problems with incidents of inaccurate logging of work and other attendance problems that it had discovered “by happenstance” through supervisors who managed crews across multiple work sites.

The employer installed the technology on work phones for use on job sites. The technology gathered data about whether an employee was within a work zone (along with distance away from the zone) once every three minutes. This data could not be reviewed until 24 hours later except for a “roll call” function that supervisors could use to check on employee location at any given time.

There is a line of British Columbia location tracking jurisprudence favourable to employers marked by a leading case decided by former Commissioner Elizabeth Denham – Schindler Elevator. The Schindler case, though, involved GPS technology installed in mobile workforce vehicles, partly for safety-related purposes – not phone based technology used on a job site to improve productivity. The union also argued that Schindler should no longer be followed because it pre-dated the Supreme Court of Canada’s alcohol testing decision in Irving Pulp & Paper.

The Board disagreed, and affirmed and applied Schindler. It held:

  • the information was not sensitive;
  • the collection was “reasonably likely” to be effective in satisfying its purposes;
  • the manner of collection was reasonable, in particular because the collection of data was minimized to what was necessary (not precise location and not continuous monitoring); and
  • the employer was entitled to collect the information even though there were other means of addressing its attendance problems, and is not required to exhaust all available alternatives.

This is a helpful decision for employers. While continuing to signal an aversion to “continuous monitoring” and highlighting the need for data minimization, the decision allows for the use of location awareness technology on a job site, which I believe is a Canadian first. It was also quite clear that this employer was motivated by distrust, which unions have argued aggravates the impact of monitoring. The employer did a good job of adducing evidence to prove it had legitimate concerns, but the Board also endorsed the proposition made in Schindler that there is “nothing remarkable” about an employer checking on compliance with work rules.

Kone Inc. v International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 82, 2022 CanLII 1018 (BC LA).

IPC upholds university vaccination policy

On April 5th, the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario affirmed a University of Guelph requirement that students in residence for the 2021/2022 academic year be fully vaccinated.

The IPC has jurisdiction to consider whether a public body’s collection of personal information is “necessary” to a lawfully authorized activity based on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act. The necessity test has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario as strict. Where personal information would merely be helpful to the activity, it is not “necessary” within the meaning of FIPPA. Similarly, where the purpose can be accomplished another way, a public body is obliged to chose the other route.

The IPC’s affirmation of the University’s policy (and its collection of personal information) rested heavily on a letter the University had received from the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Health Unit in July 2021. It said:

I am writing to recommend in the strongest possible terms that the University of Guelph require a full (two-dose) course of COVID-19 vaccines for all students living in residence during the 2021-22 school year. Additionally, the University should continue to recommend strongly that all other students, faculty and staff receive both doses of the vaccine.

Students beginning or returning to their studies this fall are looking forward to a safe and relational post-secondary experience. Adding this significant layer of protection will help create a more normal fall on campus. Strong vaccination rates across the University are an important part of student physical and mental well-being, and should contribute peace of mind to all Gryphons.

The IPC affirmation is significant not only because it supports a vaccine mandate based on the strict FIPPA necessity standard, but also because of its adoption of this letter and its reasoning. While mandates must certainly be based on science that establishes that vaccination reduces the risk of exposure, the privacy commissioners, labour arbitrators and judges who will continue to be called upon to evaluate mandates must recognize that they are also based on a need for stability and mental well-being.

We thought we were though the pandemic, and are now in Wave Six. Will there be a Wave Seven? And although the province is trying to give us the stability we all crave by committing to laissez faire policy, why should our public bodies be precluded from adopting stable, medium-term policy that prioritizes safety?

University of Guelph (Re), 2022 CanLII 25559 (ON IPC).

GSB addresses use of surveillance footage

In a decision first released last September, the Grievance Settlement Board partly upheld a grievance that challenged the use of video surveillance footage in Ontario correctional facilities.

It has become standard to establish the purpose of workplace video surveillance as supportive of safety and security and to proscribe the use of surveillance technology as a replacement for supervision. In principle this distinction makes sense, though in practice it is unclear and has led to disputes.

In this case, the GSB affirmed the employer’s use of video footage to address misconduct discovered incidentally during a legitimate surveillance footage review that was occasioned by a security incident. Vice-Chair Anderson said:

The evidence as to why the surveillance camera was placed in the central control module was scant.  The ISPPM indicates “audio and video technology are tools to enhance safety and security”.  Sgt Essery’s evidence suggests that was the purpose for the camera in the central control module. It is clear the duties of the officers in the control module are reasonably necessary to the safety and security of inmates, staff and property in the building.  I infer the ability, if necessary, to observe central control module officers in the performance of those duties has a safety and security function.  The camera is also used to observe the hallway next to the central control module through which inmates pass, in particular when they are being escorted to or from the segregation units.  There is no dispute that this has a safety and security function.  There is no evidence that the camera was placed in the central control module for any other purposes.  I conclude its placement was done in good faith for purposes permitted by Appendix COR10.

The GSB also recognized that the employer could justify the use surveillance video to spot check compliance with a procedure because the spot check and procedure were both to uphold safety and security – the primary purpose of video surveillance. In the circumstances, however, the GSB held that the employer had not proven a sufficient need for such spot checks.

The practical lesson for employers is to be wary of vague and unbounded promises to refrain from using video surveillance. The matter is one of nuance.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union) v Ontario (Solicitor General), 2021 CanLII 95740 (ON GSB).

Where’s that workplace surveillance bill? More thoughts pending its release

It’s Friday at 4:20pm and I don’t see an Ontario workplace surveillance bill yet, so here are a couple more thoughts – one positive, one negative and one neutral.

Positive – Organizations ought to employ “information technology asset management” – a process for governing their network hardware and software. Those organizations with strong asset management practices will have little difficulty identifying how employees are “monitored.” For those who are weak asset managers, the new bill is an invitation to improvement and rooting out unmanaged applications.

Negative – As I said yesterday, the devil will be in the detail, and the scope of the “monitoring” that is regulated will be key. Monitoring must be defined in a way that does not affect non-routine processes – i.e., audits and investigations. Those raise a different kind of privacy concern, and a notification requirement shouldn’t frustrate an organization’s ability to investigate.

Neutral – Organizations typically keep security controls confidential to protect against behavior we call “threat shifting” – the shifting of tactics to circumvent existing, known controls. I’m doubtful the type of disclosure the bill will require will create a security risk, but it’s an issue to consider when we see the text.

Bring on the bill!

A call to modernize public sector privacy statutes without inviting litigation

The wave of public sector reform is coming, so it’s time to start thinking and talking about they best way achieve strong privacy protection in the Ontario public sector. I had the honour of participating the University of Toronto’s Privacy Day celebration yesterday, including by sitting on a panel and giving the short prepared remark below. I’m all for privacy protection and modernization, but the implementation of administrative monetary penalties in the Ontario public sector (like now in Quebec) would fundamentally change the relationship between the Ontario public sector and its regulator and not serve the public or education sectors well.