Canadian Labour Reporter

FEBRUARY 24, 2014 6 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2014 Continued on page 8 Arbitration Awards Summaries of recent arbitration awards from federal and provincial arbitration boards. For summaries from past issues, visit www.labour-reporter.com for a searchable online archive. Your paid subscription includes unlimited access to the archive. Contact information rightfully disclosed to union: Supreme Court PROVIDING ThE UNION with personal contact information of an employee did not violate privacy rights, the supreme court has ruled. In its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling from the Federal Court of Appeal (and before that, the Public Service Labour Relations Board), saying the government acted appropriately when it provided the union with contact informa- tion of its employees. Elizabeth Bernard, employed in the federal public service, has been fighting this battle for about two decades. In 1992, Bernard tried to stop the disclosure of personal information to the union which represented her, the Profes- sional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC). However, after taking her case all the way to the Supreme Court, she lost. The court decided the employer and union were successful in collecting and using personal informa- tion, such as home address and telephone numbers, only in the manner they were intended to be used. That is, for contacting employees regarding union matters outside of the office. The information was used specifically for that purpose only. "An employee cannot waive his or her right to be fairly — and exclusively — represented by the union. Given that the union owes legal obligations to all employees — whether or not they are Rand employees — and may have to communi- cate with them quickly, the union should not be deprived of information in the hands of the employer that could assist in fulfilling those obligations," the decision reads. Access to personal information, to some degree, is an in- herent right of the union, taking into account the nature of its job to represent workers. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled the disclosure of information not in violation of the Privacy Act. The Cupreme Court was simply upholding the decision of lower courts. In fact, when the case was heard at the labour relations board, both the employer and PIPSC came to an agreement, which the board accepted, rather than to look at the overall implications of privacy rights. Under the terms of the new agreement, the employer was required to disclose to the union, on a quarterly basis, the home mailing address and telephone numbers of the bargain- ing unit. The deal was subjected to a number of conditions, all of which related to the security and privacy of the infor- mation gathered. In particular, the union vowed not to disclose the informa- tion to anyone other than the appropriate union officials, not to distribute or copy the information and to ensure officials with access to it would comply with the agreement. However, it was not enough for Bernard, and she took her case to the Federal Court of Appeal, and later the Supreme Court of Canada. Further complicating the matter is that Bernard was a so- called Rand formula employee. That means that while she is a member of a bargaining unit in the federal public service, she does not belong to the union which has the exclusive bar- gaining rights for her bargaining work. While Bernard was not technically a union member, she was entitled to the benefits of the collective agreement, representation by the union and was required to pay union dues. According to Bernard, the disclosure of her home telephone number and address breached her privacy rights and, namely, her right not to associate with PIPSC. But because the union used the phone numbers and ad- dresses of bargaining unit members for the exact purpose it was obtained for, there was no breach of the Privacy Act. The union was simply doing its job. For instance, one of the union's duties is to provide all bargaining unit members with a reasonable opportunity to participate in strike votes and be notified of such votes. Such would constitute a justifiable reason to have personal contact information for workers, as communication through the employer-regulated email or office job boards would not work. As well, the union must be on an even keel with the em- ployer, with respect to information relevant to the collective bargaining relationship, the Supreme Court's decision went on to say. "Disclosure of personal information to the union is not like disclosure of personal information to the public, be- cause of the tripartite relationship between the employee, the employer and the union," said the court ruling. "To the extent that the employer has information which is of value to the union in representing employees, the union is entitled to it." Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed Bernard's appeal, and found the union and employer did no wrong in disclosing personal contact information for its employees. Reference: Elizabeth Bernard and the Attorney General of Can- ada and Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC). Feb. 7, 2014. Facebook post leads to firing IT MIGhT BE time to update your privacy settings. Victoria Stokes — a tallyman for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper — certainly would have benefited from stricter secu- rity on her Facebook profile. She was fired by the Newfound-

• Cover