Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-1572.Bonner et al.90-10-09"~*~ ONTARIO EMPLOYES DE LA COURONNE CROWN EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARtO GRIEVANCE C,OMMISSION DE SETI'LEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST, SUITE2100, TORONTO, ONTARIO. NISO IZ8 TELEPHONE/7'ELEPt,.~ONE: (4~$~ /26-1388 1~0, RUE OUNOAS DUEST, BUREAU 2100, TORONTO [ONTARIO). MSG IZB FACSIMILE/I'~L~CO~rE : (416) 326- ~396 1572/88 IN THE RATTER OF AN ARBITHATION Under T~E CRO~N EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAXNXNG ACT Before THE GRZEVANCE SETTL~JqENT BOARD BETWEEN: OPSEU (Bonnet et al) Griever ~ - and - The Crown in Right'of Ontario (Ministry of Health) ~ployer BEFORE: B.B. Fisher Vice-Chairperson J. McManus Member E. Orsini 8ember FOR THE R. Wells GRIEVER: Counsel Gowling, Strathy & Henderson Barristers & Solicitors FOR THE M. Quick ~RPLOYER: Counsel - Ministry of Health BFJ~ING$: July. 6, 1989 Ap£il 10, 1990. DECISION This is a health and safety case involving the RNs and RNAs at Oak Ridge, which is the max/mum security d/v/sion of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre. This case involves the actions of a cert_a_~n resident of Oak Ridge, Mr. R. On September 9, 1988, Mr. R sent a series of letters to the College of Nurses of Ontario cornmen4ing certain named RNs and RNAs who worked at Oak Ridge. He asked the College to forward these letters of commendation to the named individuals, together with a cover letter from the College and to provide him with copies of the same. The College followed the request of Mr. R and sent the appropriate cover letter to each of the named RNs and RNAs at their home address. In early October of 1988, they provided Mr. R with copies of these Cover letters, thereby disclosing the employee's home address. Mr. R therefore had in his possession the home addresses of numerous employees of Oak Ridge. This information is treated by the employer as confidential and is not given out to employees. It should be noted that Mr. R was at Oak Ridge on a Lieutenant Governor's Warrant as a result of being found not guilty by reason of insanity on eight charges of arson. It should also be noted that alot of housing in the area of Oak Ridge is of wood construction- · This combination of facts led the grievors to have real concerns about their safety now that a dangerous resident knew their home address. It should be noted that the Employer is not to blame for the actions of the College of Nurses in releasing the home addresses to Mr. R. The ~only complaint of the Union is that once the Employer knew of this breach of security, they did not take adequate measures to ~ protect the health and safety of its employees. There is some dispute on the evidence as to when the employer, through Mr. Pat . Burns, Assistant Director of Nursing, actually'knew that Mr. R had possession of the names in question. Ho}vever, for the pm'poses of this decision, it is not necessary to decide the exact date upon which t_hi~ information came to Mr. Burn's attention as it is clear what-Mr. Burns -2- did and did not do once he had this information. In effect, all that. Mr. Burns did was to contact the College of Nurses of Ontario and request that they no longer give out the addresses of its staff. The College agreed to this. Mr. Burns furthermore brought this matter up at the next Health and Safety Committee meeting w~ich was held in December 1988. What is important, however, is to examine what management did not do. At no time did Mr. Burns ever personally contact or write to those employees whose addresses were released and advise them of the breach of security. At no time did anyone from management ever ask Mr. R if he would voluntarily release the letter~ he had received. Mr. R {estified that Ms. Finney, Associate Administrator of Oak Ridge, had asked him to destroy the letters, which he refused. Mr. R did not want to destroy letters himself, however, he was willing to give them to someone else. Ms. Finney was not called to contradict t_.hi$ evidence. There is no doubt that given the nature of the type of resident housed at Oak Ridge that confidentiality of employee's home and addresses is quite significant. This issue of ~ the confidentiality of employees' addresses in an institutional setting was canvassed in. MacLean, More and Union Grievance (1134/88 Vice Chairperson Barrett) in which it was held that the addresses of employees was a confidential matter which the Employer is obligated to take reasonable precautions to protect from disclosure to.residents. It may be that there are inherent dangers in choosing to work at a place like Oak Ridge, but that does not include putting your family and possessions at risk by having your home address known to' the residents. It is true that the Employer had no part in the initial disclosure of the addresses to Mr. R and therefore no blame can be attached to them at that point. However, once Management was aware that there had been a breach of security they should have taken at least the minimu.m steps. -3- 1. Managemei~t should have immediately advised those employees whose addresses had been released to Mr. R that the breach of security had taken place. 2. Management should have requested of Mr. R that he voluntarily give up.these letters. It is questionable as to whether or not Management had the right to actually confiscate these letters as there is an issue as to whether or not Section 20(1) of the 'Mental Health Act prevents this type of seizure. However, it is clear that they could have at least asked Mr. R to deliver up these letters. The only remedy being sought by the Un/on is a declaration insofar as all th'e. affected employees now know:of the security breach (however as a result of the Union's actions, not management's) and by virtue of the faa. that the offending letters are now in possession of the Board. . Therefore the grievance' is.allowed, however, the only remedy awarded is a declaration that the EmployerI breached Article 18.1 in that they did not immediately notify the affected employees of the br~ach of security and that they failed to request of Mr. R that he voluntarily turn over the offending material. Dated at Toronto this -9~l~5~t%y of October t990. " ii/ !~ _ , ~eVice Chairpers°n J. McManus , E. Orsini , ttember