Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 20-09-10IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN HUMBER RIVER HOSPITAL (the “Hospital”) and ONTARIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION (the “Union”) POLICY GRIEVANCE #2016-0577-0016 RE NAME TAGS SOLE ARBITRATOR: John Stout APPEARANCES: For the Hospital: Jackie VanDerMeulen – Fasken Iryna Rizzuto Nazneen Mehta Peter Clancy Rebecca Rossi For the Union: Jesse Issac Gutman – Grievance Officer Roxanne Walent Gayatri Samaroo Eric Davis HEARINGS HELD IN TORONTO, ONTARIO ON JULY 17, 2018 AND BY VIDEOCONFERENCE ON JULY 21, 2020 2 AWARD INTRODUCTION [1] This matter concerns a policy grievance (#2016-0577-0016) filed by the Union on June 17, 2016 alleging that the Hospital has failed to make adequate provisions for the health and safety of its employees by allowing the last name of staff to be displayed on badges. The parties agree that I was properly appointed and have jurisdiction to resolve the grievance. [2] The Union asserts that their members, who are healthcare professionals, are at an increased risk of workplace violence and retaliation and that harassment is a great possibility due to the last names of employees being displayed in public. The Union also asserts that the displaying of last names is an intrusion upon employee privacy. [3] The Hospital disagrees with the Union’s assertions and takes the position that the requirement to display first and last names on badges is a reasonable and bona fide rule/policy that has been in place for many years. The Hospital asserts that under management rights they are entitled to require employees to wear name badges that display their full name so patients can identify those who are providing them with care. The Hospital points out that there is absolutely no evidence of any employee’s safety being compromised. The Hospital submits that the Union’s concerns are speculative, and the grievance ought to be dismissed. [4] This matter came on for hearing on July 17, 2018. At that time I heard opening statements and the evidence of Roxanne Walent, the then Local Union President. The matter continued on July 21, 2020. Due to social distancing requirements resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing was held by videoconference. I was provided with additional evidence in the form of witness statements and attached documents. All witnesses were cross-examined and re- examined in the traditional manner. Counsel then made final oral submissions. 3 [5] After carefully considering the evidence and parties’ submissions, I find that the Hospital has not violated the Collective Agreement. The Hospital’s policy has been in existence for a significant period of time without any safety issues arising. The policy is reasonable and directly related to patient care. Therefore, for reasons elaborated upon below, the grievance must be dismissed BACKGROUND FACTS [6] The Hospital is one of Canada’s largest regional acute care hospitals, serving a catchment area of more than 850,00 people in the northwest Greater Toronto Area. [7] The Union represents approximately 375 of the Hospital’s 4,219 employees. The Union’s members are generally healthcare professionals working in a variety of positions, including the following: o Laboratory Assistants in Specimen Procurement, Pathology, Clinical Chemistry and Microbiology; o Ultrasound Technologists; o Registered Technologists in Radiology, Mammography, Pathology, Transfusion Services, Nuclear Medicine, Clinical Chemistry, Haematology, CT, MRI, Microbiology, Cytopathology, and Angiography; o Non-Certified EEG Technicians; o Respiratory Therapists; o ECG and MRI Technicians; o Registered Echocardiographers; o Non-Registered Technicians (Sleep Clinic); o Cardio Pulmonary Technicians; and o Anaesthesia Assistants (Operating Rooms). 4 [8] The work performed by the Union’s members bringing them into direct contact with patients, including physical touching, examining, inserting equipment such as needles and/or administering substances. The procedures performed by the Union’s members occasionally cause discomfort or pain due to the nature of the examination. [9] On October 18, 2015 the Hospital moved to its current site on Wilson Avenue (the “Wilson Site”). The Wilson Site is Ontario’s first digital hospital, showcasing technological and environmental innovation. [10] Prior to moving to the Wilson Site, the Hospital operated two separate locations; the Finch Site and the Church Site. [11] In November 2015, the Hospital updated their policy relating to photo identification (photo ID). The revision was necessary due to the move to the new Wilson Site and the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. [12] The policy indicates that the use of the technology is important to the Hospital’s commitment to high quality and efficient patient care as well as a safe environment for staff, physicians and patients. Pursuant to the policy, the Hospital requires employees to wear a photo ID, which is equipped with an RFID cartridge. Employees are to wear the photo ID and RFID cartridge together at all times while working. The physical photo ID badge displays the employee’s first and last name (the first name is in a larger font than the last name), job title and department. [13] The RFID technology permits the Hospital to receive and store information and location data. The particulars relating to the RFID technology are not relevant to the matter before me as the Union does not take issue with the use of the RFID technology. 5 [14] All Hospital employees also have a “Code White” button on their photo ID badges. If this button is pressed, it will summons assistance to the employee anywhere in the Hospital, including the Wilson Site parking facilities. [15] The Union takes issue with the requirement to display both the first and last name of the employee on the photo ID. The requirement to wear a photo ID with both the first and last name is not new to this workplace. There is no dispute that for the past 20-30 years the Hospital has required employees to wear a photo ID that displaying both the first and last name. The only exception is Registered Nurses (RNs), represented by the Ontario Nurses’ Association (ONA) who are permanently based (posted on a full-time basis) in the Emergency Department (ER) or the Mental Health Unit. Ms. Walent, the former Local Union President believes that the exemption for ONA was the result of a grievance settlement, although that was never confirmed by the Hospital. [16] While some of the Union’s members may need to perform some work in the ER and the Mental Health Unit, the vast majority of their work is performed outside these two departments. [17] The Hospital advises that it is their policy to provide individual exemptions to the requirement to have both first and last names on the photo ID badge where circumstances warrant such an exemption. The current Local Union President, Ms. Samaroo, advises that she was unaware of the exemption. However, the evidence indicates that this exemption was communicated to the Union during a June 7, 2016 Labour Management Meeting. There is no evidence of any Union member seeking an exemption. [18] The evidence indicates that there is no uniform policy across Ontario regarding hospital photo identification. Each hospital has their own policy and they vary with some hospitals requiring the first and last name, while other hospitals only require the first name and/or the first name and an initial. 6 [19] Many of the Union’s members are regulated by professional colleges. Most of these members are required by their professional obligations to identify themselves by both first and last name if asked by a patient. Some, but not all professional regulators, specifically direct professionals to include their first and last name on name tags. The following examples were provided: • The College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario (CRTO) has a practice direction that reads: “It is an expected standard of practice that [Respiratory Therapists] manage their professional and therapeutic relationships by introducing him/herself to the patient/client with their name and professional designation. If a Member feels that identifying his/herself by name could put them at risk, they should seek further assistance by contacting the CRTO.” • The Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers has a practice direction that reads: “When identifying himself or herself in writing as a psychotherapist on a name tag, business card or any document, the member must set out his or her full name.. • The College of Nurses of Ontario has a practice direction that reads: “A client and others are entitled to know the name of a nurse who provides the client with health care services, so that the nurse can be properly identified. Because identification of a nurse allows the client to hold the nurse accountable for the nurse’s professional conduct, nurses should not expect to be able to maintain anonymity. Accountability is an essential feature of effective regulation of the profession. The college recommends that a nurse’s name tag includes the first and last name and category of registration.” [20] At the time the grievance was filed, Robin Brown was the Hospital’s Manager, Employee and Labour Relations. According to Ms. Brown, the most important reason for the photo ID policy is ensuring that a patient knows who is providing them with care. The Hospital advises that the practice of having first and last name on photo ID badges supports their vision and values, by ensuring that staff are accountable to the public, and that patients have an extra sense of security during difficult times when they are particularly vulnerable. 7 [21] The Hospital points out that the photo ID with first and last names makes it easier to identify the staff who are providing care. The Hospital asserts that patients have a right to know who is providing them with treatment. The Hospital notes, in any event, that patients can obtain the names of staff by accessing their own personal health records, pursuant to the Ontario Personal Health Information Protection Act. [22] On March 1, 2016 the Union raised their concerns about the last name appearing on photo ID badges. The issue was discussed at a number of subsequent Labour Management Meetings. However, the Union was not satisfied with the Hospital’s response and the then Local Union President, Ms. Walent, filed the grievance on June 17, 2016. According to Ms. Walent, the Union’s main concerns were confidentiality and a concern with respect to harassment, stalking and potential violence. [23] Ms. Samaroo was elected the Local Union President in December 2018, which was after the first day of hearing this matter. According to Ms. Samaroo, she has received “death threats” from ER patients who are mentally ill or under the effects of psychoactive substances. Ms. Samaroo was unable to provide particulars or documentation relating to these events. [24] There is no dispute that prior to the circumstances giving rise to the grievance, the issue of first and last names on photo ID badges was never a topic of discussion at the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC). The Union has a representative on the JHSC and it was not until March 1, 2016 that they brought forward the safety concerns relating to the last names being displayed on photo ID badges. The Union did not object to displaying first names on photo ID badges and they did not identify any particular incident giving rise to their concerns about displaying the last name. [25] The Minutes of the JHSC indicate that the issue was discussed on a number of occasions after March 1, 2016. On August 9, 2016 it is noted that no 8 incident reports have been completed relating to the displaying of first and last names on photo ID badges. There was also no mention of the issue in any Violence Risk Assessments that were completed. There has also never been a security incident or report of any staff involving threats or violence relating to the display of first and last names on photo ID badges. Ultimately, in November 2018, the issue of first and last names on the photo ID was deferred until these proceedings have been completed and I have issued an award. [26] The Hospital’s Human Resources Department records show no complaints of either workplace harassment or violence relating to employees’ first and last names being displayed on their photo ID badges. [27] The Hospital presented evidence about their Occupational Health and Safety Programs, which they characterize as robust and extensive. The Hospital provides training to all Hospital employees on workplace violence and harassment prevention. Part of the Occupational Health and Safety Program is the Hospital’s Workplace Violence Prevention Program, which has a corresponding policy that has been in effect since 2010. [28] The Hospital provides training to all Hospital employees on workplace violence and harassment prevention. As part of the Workplace Violence Prevention Program, the Hospital also provides “De-escalation Strategy Cards” to all employees, which can be worn on their name badge and referenced in a situation where de-escalation may be required. [29] The Hospital has developed a Risk Assessment and Flagging of Patients Policy. This policy sets out the requirements for Hospital staff to provide advance warning to other workers if: o The individual has a known, disclosed or documented history of violence; o The violent behaviour is either intentional or unintentional; 9 o The individual is a recipient of care / services; and o An objective risk assessment produces a risk of “moderate” or “high”. [30] These risk assessments are most commonly conducted by the ER “triage” RN. They are also conducted by the primary RN in the ER during a “Psychosocial/Mental Health Risk Assessment” and by the primary RN for every admitted patient. When an individual is “flagged”, the incident and reasons for flagging must be documented in the patient’s record. The flag will remain on the patient’s electronic medical records and can be reviewed for all admissions. Flagged patients will have a purple triangle placed outside their room to alert Hospital staff. [31] Ms. Samaroo indicates that all healthcare workers perform a patient risk assessment when providing care. However, she concedes that the Union’s members do not perform the initial triage risk assessment that is performed by the RNs in the ER. [32] The Hospital has also developed a template “Safety Plan” for employees who may be at risk or experience violence, including “Type 2” violence. Type 2 violence is when a patient, visitor or family member of a patient becomes violent, or threatens violence towards an employee or another patient at the Hospital. [33] The Hospital’s Occupational Health and Safety Program also conducts “risk assessments” for each of the Hospital’s units/departments. A review of the Hospital’s risk assessments shows that where the photo ID badge is raised as a concern, the risk level is evaluated as being “low”. [34] The Hospital also advises that the Ministry of Labour has visited the Hospital on a number of occasions. The Ministry has not issued any orders against the Hospital. 10 [35] The Hospital does not consider the photo ID name badge practice to present a meaningful risk to employee health and safety. The Hospital acknowledges subjective employee concerns about a risk of violence or harassment in the workplace relating to the photo ID badges. However, the Hospital is unaware of any objective evidence to suggest that the concern is valid. [36] The Hospital reviewed records and could not find any incidents of violence or threats of violence related to an employee’s first and last name on their photo ID badge. The Hospital knows of only one incident where a concern about harassment was raised by an employee about a patient looking at their photo ID badge. Following an investigation it was revealed that the patient was simply trying to give the employee a letter complimenting the care they had received from Hospital staff. [37] In 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and Ministry of Labour introduced a three-year project designed to identify opportunities to reduce the risk of violence occurring in healthcare workplaces. As part of the project four working groups were established with both union and management representation. Peter Clancy, the Hospital’s Director of Occupational Health and Safety is a representative on all four working groups. He has also made presentations to the project’s leadership table on related topics. Mr. Clancy indicates that none of the recommendations coming from the four working groups include any recommendations relating to name badges. [38] In her evidence, Ms. Samaroo raises concerns relating to harassment and discrimination by racist patients who according to her “will use name tags to identify workers’ ethnicities to determine if they will permit them to care for them based on their race.” Ms. Samaroo indicates that she is “racially ambiguous” and having her full name on her photo ID badge has led to questions about her ethnicity or place of origin. Ms. Samaroo also indicates in her evidence that she has observed a staff member reading another staff member’s photo ID badge and remarking about the 11 employee being Sri Lankan and then commenting about the Tamil Tigers, who were listed as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. [39] The Hospital objected to Ms. Samaroo’s evidence relating to racism and harassment as raising a new issue, which the Hospital never had the opportunity to address prior to these proceedings. In my view, the evidence is related to “harassment”, which is referenced on the face of the grievance. I therefore allowed the evidence to be admitted, subject to argument with respect to weight and providing the Hospital with an opportunity to respond if I found the evidence relevant to my decision. [40] The evidence of Ms. Samaroo is very concerning. Canada is a cultural mosaic and employees are entitled to a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. If Ms. Samaroo has experienced racist behaviour or discrimination in the workplace, then she has an obligation to report such incidents to the Hospital. The Hospital in turn has a responsibility to investigate and address the issue. Unfortunately, these allegations and concerns appear to have never been brought to the Hospital’s attention and therefore they never had an opportunity to address them. In my view, the Hospital ought to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to review and address these new allegations and concerns. [41] In terms of the policy grievance before me, I do not feel that the evidence is relevant to the extent that the Hospital needs to provide reply evidence. I note that the displaying of a first name could give rise to the exact same issue raised by Ms. Samaroo. In addition, the mere appearance of a person, be that their gender, colour or the way they present themselves, may give rise to similar issues including racism, sexism and discrimination. These issues need to be addressed on a case- by-case basis. If the issues are wide-spread or systemic, then further action may be required to address these important issues and concerns. The evidence of Ms. Samaroo relating to racism and harassment does not lead me to find that the current photo ID policy is unreasonable. The current policy provides for exemptions 12 and nothing prevents the Hospital from addressing these issues and concerns after further investigation. DECISION [42] The issue to be decided is whether the Hospital’s policy and practice of having both the first and last name on photo ID badges violates the Collective Agreement. To resolve the issue it must be determined whether the Hospital’s policy and practice are a valid exercise of management rights under the Collective Agreement. [43] Both counsel agree that resolving the grievance involves applying the analysis found in Lumber & Sawmill Workers’ Union, Local 2537 and KVP Co. Ltd., (1965) 16 L.A.C. 73 (hereinafter “KVP”) . This analysis was endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. CEP, Local 30 [2013] 2 S.C.R. 458, where Justice Abella states: 24 The scope of management’s unilateral rule-making authority under a collective agreement is persuasively set out in Re Lumber & Sawmill Workers’ Union, Local 2537, and KVP Co. (1965), 16 L.A.C. 73 (Robinson). The heart of the “KVP test”, which is generally applied by arbitrators, is that any rule or policy unilaterally imposed by an employer and not subsequently agreed to by the union, must be consistent with the collective agreement and be reasonable (Donald J. M. Brown and David M. Beatty, Canadian Labour Arbitration (4th ed. (loose-leaf)), vol. 1, at topic 4:1520). 25 The KVP test has also been applied by the courts. Tarnopolsky J.A. launched the judicial endorsement of KVP in Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) v. C.U.P.E. (1990), 74 O.R. (2d) 239 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1990] 2 S.C.R. ix, concluding that the “weight of authority and common sense” supported the principle that “all company rules with disciplinary consequences must be reasonable” (pp. 257-58 (emphasis in original)). In other words: The Employer cannot, by exercising its management functions, issue unreasonable rules and then discipline employees for failure to follow them. Such discipline would simply be without reasonable cause. To permit such action would be to invite subversion of the reasonable cause clause. [p. 257] 26 Subsequent appellate decisions have accepted that rules unilaterally made in the exercise of management discretion under a collective agreement must not only be consistent with the agreement, but must also be reasonable if the breach of the rule results in disciplinary action (Charlottetown (City) v. Charlottetown Police Association (1997), 151 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 69 (P.E.I.S.C. (App. Div.)), at para. 13 17; see also N.A.P.E. v. Western Avalon Roman Catholic School Board, 2000 NFCA 39, 190 D.L.R. (4th) 146, at para. 34; St. James-Assiniboia Teachers’ Assn. No. 2 v. St. James-Assiniboia School Division No. 2, 2002 MBCA 158, 222 D.L.R. (4th) 636, at paras. 19-28). 27 In assessing KVP reasonableness in the case of unilaterally imposed employer rules or policies affecting employee privacy, arbitrators have used a “balancing of interests” approach. As the intervener the Alberta Federation of Labour noted: Determining reasonableness requires labour arbitrators to apply their labour relations expertise, consider all of the surrounding circumstances, and determine whether the employer’s policy strikes a reasonable balance. Assessing the reasonableness of an employer’s policy can include assessing such things as the nature of the employer’s interests, any less intrusive means available to address the employer’s concerns, and the policy’s impact on employees. [I.F., at para. 4] [44] The KVP test requires me to examine the Hospital’s requirement to wear a photo ID badge displaying both the employee’s first and last name and determine if the policy is a reasonable exercise of management rights and consistent with the Collective Agreement. The analysis must be undertaken having regard to the factual context and include a balancing of the parties’ valid interests. [45] The issue of photo ID badges is not specifically addressed in the Collective Agreement. The policy has been in place for decades without any prior complaint. In my view, the policy is a valid exercise of management rights and consistent with the Collective Agreement. The fact that the policy has been in place and unchallenged for many decades supports such a finding. In addition, the policy reflects a careful balancing of interests. [46] The interests to be balanced in this case are the Hospital’s interest in providing their patients with a safe and secure environment. On the other hand, the Union’s members have an interest in protecting their right to privacy and their safety. In terms of weighing the interests, I am of the view that the evidence must be examined in context and it must also be based on objective facts and not subjective interest or concerns. In addition, the more intrusive the policy on employee rights, the more the employer will be required to justify their policy. 14 [47] The Hospital’s policy was adopted in good faith based on their vision and values. The Hospital’s interest in the photo ID badge policy also protects the interests and rights of their patients, which is a very important contextual factor that cannot be over looked. A patient attends a hospital when they are vulnerable and in need of medical treatment. Patients have the right to know who is providing them with medical treatment. This is particularly true when the medical treatment involves, as described by the Union’s evidence, physical touching, examining, inserting equipment such as needles and/or administering substances. The law recognizes an individual’s right to personal autonomy and physical integrity, see Irving Pulp & Paper Limited, supra, paragraph 50. The Hospital’s concern for patient security and staff accountability is a valid concern linked to a legitimate work-related purpose. [48] The Union’s members’ rights must be examined in the context of most being regulated health professionals who are required to identify themselves in patient charts and upon the patient’s request. The privacy interest at stake is diminished in this context. The safety concerns must also be viewed through the lens of a policy that has been in place for decades without any evidence of any reported incidents of violence or harassment related to the photo ID badges that include both the first and last name of employees. [49] The Union asserts that the policy is inconsistently applied because the Hospital has granted an exemption to RNs who work in Mental Health unit and the ER. In my view, the mere provision of an exemption does not mean a policy is being applied inconsistently. In the context of a hospital environment where patients are treated for individual ailments that may be both physical and/or mental, I am of the view that the exemption provided by the Hospital is reasonable and addresses a valid safety concern. The RNs who work in the ER and Mental Health Unit have a greater exposure to the possibility of threats of violence due to the nature of the work and patients that are being treated in those environments. The RNs provide the most hands on care and they conduct the initial risk assessment. 15 It must also be noted that the Hospital’s policy also provides that they will entertain other exemptions on a case-by-case basis. This is an entirely reasonable policy that allows the Hospital to respond and address what may be valid concerns or needs to accommodate individuals, including any claim of harassment or discrimination. [50] The ridged application of rules ought to be avoided and providing for specific exemptions does not in these circumstances render the Hospital’s policy unreasonable. In fact, the granting of exemptions complies with the Hospital’s legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990 c.H.19 (the “Code”) to provide individuals with suitable accommodation. [51] The Occupational Health and Safety Act R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1 requires an employer take “every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker,” see ss.25(2)(h). The evidence before me demonstrates that the Hospital takes their obligation very seriously and they have addressed the health and safety concerns raised by the Union and other employees. The photo ID badges include safety measures such as RFID technology and a “Code white” panic button. The Hospital has conducted risk assessments and has policies and procedures in place for assessing and flagging those who may present a risk for violence in this workplace. An employer is not required to eliminate any and all risk. There will always be some risk that some violence may occur in any workplace, let alone an acute care hospital. The Hospital’s obligation is to take every precaution reasonable and I find that they have done so in this case. [52] The cases relied upon by the Union are quite distinguishable from the facts before me. In both Cambridge Memorial Hospital and OPSEU, Local 239, 2018 CanLII (ONLA) and Re Prairie North Health Region and CUPE, Local 5111 (2015), 264 L.A.C. (4th) 16 (Ponak), the cases involved a new policy and no workplace violence assessment being conducted by the employer. In the matter before me the policy has a 20-30 year track record of no health and safety issues arising. In 16 addition, the Hospital has conducted workplace risk assessments and the findings were that the photo ID badges present a low risk. [53] In terms of the Union’s argument that the Hospital’s policy violates the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F. 31, I agree with the conclusions of Arbitrator Marcotte in Cambridge Memorial Hospital, supra, where he finds: As concerns a breach of FIPPA, the Union and Hospital positions are straightforward and brief. Thus, the Union contends that use of first and last names on name tags is for purposes other than the employment relationship, and therefore, violates the Act. The Hospital contends that first and last name on name tags falls under s. 3 of the Act and thus, there is no violation. Section 3 of the Act is headed, “Business identify information, etc.” and states, as previously indicated, (3) Personal information does not include the name, title contact information or designation of an individual that identifies that individual in a business, professional or official capacity. The Irving Paper decision considered the matter of protection of employee’s privacy in the context of the effects of the employer’s mandatory random alcohol testing policy, an issue that did not involve the use of an employee’s first and last name of name tags. The only case before me that deals with this issue in the context of name tags is Prairie North. The wording of the LAFOIP, however, is sufficiently different that the arbitrator’s findings on this matter are not helpful for our purposes. A reading of the language of s. 3 of FIPPA indicates that the use of the name of an individual that “identifies the individual in a business, professional or official capacity” is not personal information subject to protection of privacy. There is no definition of “name” such that this section can be said to not include an individual’s first and last name. Employees are required to wear their name tag in the workplace. A hospital is in the health care business, therefore the people who work in it do so in a business capacity, if not a professional capacity. The use of first and last name by the Hospital is, as the Union asserts, a matter of the employment relationship but under s.3 of the Act, the use of first and last name is not personal information where the employees wears his or her name tag in his 17 or her business or professional capacity. I find the name tag policy does not breach FIPPA.1 [54] I also note that if the Union is correct in their argument that an employee’s name is private personal information, then any requirement for a professional to identify themselves would run afoul of FIPPA. In my view, such a conclusion would be absurd, particularly in the context of a hospital setting where patients are being treated and the treatment may involve touching the patient and in some cases invasive procedures. As indicated earlier, a patient has the right to know who is providing them with medical treatment. [55] In terms of the recently raised concerns of Ms. Samaroo, they represent valid concerns that must be addressed. In my view, the parties ought to discuss these concerns at their Labour Management meetings with a view to ensuring that the workplace is free from discrimination and harassment. The concerns raise issues that have broader implications that go beyond the photo ID policy. There is simply no place for racism and intolerance in our society. However, the parties need to be afforded an opportunity to discuss these issues and their broader implications before bringing in a third-party. In addition, the current policy provides for exemptions, which, if necessary, may reasonably include situations involving harassment and discrimination. [56] Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above, I find the Hospital’s policy to the reasonable and therefore the grievance must be dismissed. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 10th day of September 2020. John Stout- Arbitrator 1 The reference to s. 3 of FIPPA appears to be a typographical error. The correct section is s. 2(3) of FIPPA.