HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-1563.O'Reilly.10-10-26 Decision
Commission de
Crown Employees
Grievance
UqJOHPHQWGHVJULHIV
Settlement Board
GHVHPSOR\pVGHOD
Couronne
Suite 600 Bureau 600
180 Dundas St. West 180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388 7pO
Fax (416) 326-1396 7pOpF
GSB#2010-1563
UNION#2010-0521-0069
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
2¶5HLOO\
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFOREVice-Chair
M.B. Keller
FOR THE UNION
Laurie Sabourin, Frank Inglis, Tim Mulhall
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Grievance Officers
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Sean Milloy, Victoria Fichtenbaum
Ministry of Government Services
Employee Relations Division
Staff Relations Officers
HEARINGOctober 13, 2010, October 14, 2010.
- 2 -
Decision
[1]The parties have agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol. It is not
necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol here. Suffice it to say that the parties have
DJUHHGWRD³7UXH0HGLDWLRQ$UELWUDWLRQ´SUocess, wherein each provides the Vice-Chair
with submissions, which include the facts and authorities each relies upon. This decision is
issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement,
and is without prejudice or precedent.
[2]The grievance in this case relates to an allegation that the employer has divulged
confidential information of the grievor.
[3]It is clear that the general ledger proposition is that the medical information relating to am
employee is confidential.
[4]In this case the grievor, who requires accommodation states that her accommodation needs
were disclosed to other COs. There is factual dispute about whether there was a need to
disclose the information for operational needs. In any event, even if the allegation was
proved, I would only issue a declaration based on the facts of the case. To assist the parties
in future, I add the following:
1.If the release of the information was for bona fide operational needs, the employer
would be within its right to do so.Conversely, if there was no operational
requirement no disclosure can be made.
2.If there were operational requirements, (i.e.) required for the health and safety of
the employee, co-workers or inmates, the disclosure must be limited to those who
have a need for the information and further limited to the minimum disclosure
needed to meet the operational requirement.
th
Dated at Toronto this 26 day of October 2010.
M.B. Keller, Vice-Chair