Hi - and help with Ontario government issue

[Lori]

Hey there,

I'm having a huge battle with my employer (the Ministry of Health, Ontario)
over a privacy issue. I have a solid case, with little to no chance of
losing.

Unfortunately, there is only lint in my pockets, so I'm looking for some
pro-bono advice.

Can anyone help?

[Kelly Bert Manning]

Post by Lori
Hey there,
I'm having a huge battle with my employer (the Ministry of Health, Ontario)
over a privacy issue. I have a solid case, with little to no chance of
losing.
Unfortunately, there is only lint in my pockets, so I'm looking for some
pro-bono advice.

I take it you are not a union employee.

Unions spend money on legal cases for employees even for hopeless legal cases,
such as employees caught on video stealing.

[Lori]

Post by Kelly Bert Manning

Post by Lori
Hey there,
I'm having a huge battle with my employer (the Ministry of Health,
Ontario) over a privacy issue. I have a solid case, with little to
no chance of losing.
Unfortunately, there is only lint in my pockets, so I'm looking for
some pro-bono advice.

I take it you are not a union employee.
Unions spend money on legal cases for employees even for hopeless
legal cases, such as employees caught on video stealing.

Yes I am, but this issue crosses over into more of a civil matter.

[Kelly Bert Manning]

Post by Lori

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
I take it you are not a union employee.

Yes I am, but this issue crosses over into more of a civil matter.

So have you reviewed it with your union and taken time to consider their
response?

If it is outside their area of responsibility they may still be able to give
you some advice about walking the line between Rights as a private citizen
client of the Ministry and Duties and Obligations as an employee of the
Ministry.

[David Nicholson]

Good advice from KBM. In addition, if it involves you as an employee, you
may still be barred from filing a civil action. This is the result of
Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 SCR 929, an important case of the Supreme
Court of Canada and other cases following in its wake. Hear what your union
has to say.

David Nicholson _________________________

Post by Kelly Bert Manning

Post by Lori

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
I take it you are not a union employee.

Yes I am, but this issue crosses over into more of a civil matter.

So have you reviewed it with your union and taken time to consider their
response?
If it is outside their area of responsibility they may still be able to give
you some advice about walking the line between Rights as a private citizen
client of the Ministry and Duties and Obligations as an employee of the
Ministry.

[Lori]

Post by David Nicholson
David Nicholson

Post by Kelly Bert Manning

Post by Lori

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
I take it you are not a union employee.

Yes I am, but this issue crosses over into more of a civil matter.

So have you reviewed it with your union and taken time to consider
their response?

Yes, this matter is currently in the grievance process. Should I not have
my own representative in addition to a union representative? I'm not
convinced that the union has my best interests in mind.

Post by David Nicholson

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
If it is outside their area of responsibility they may still be able to give
you some advice about walking the line between Rights as a private
citizen client of the Ministry and Duties and Obligations as an
employee of the Ministry.

Good advice from KBM. In addition, if it involves you as an
employee, you may still be barred from filing a civil action. This
is the result of Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 SCR 929, an
important case of the Supreme Court of Canada and other cases
following in its wake. Hear what your union has to say.

Yikes - I had a look at this case, and it does appear that I'm stuck as far
as a civil action against them. It clearly says that the courts have no
jurisdiction where there is a collective agreement.

I've been faced with issues like this for the past six months, and aside
from my union action, I am running out of options.

[Kelly Bert Manning]

Post by Lori

Post by David Nicholson
David Nicholson

Post by Kelly Bert Manning

Post by Lori

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
I take it you are not a union employee.

Yes I am, but this issue crosses over into more of a civil matter.

So have you reviewed it with your union and taken time to consider
their response?

Yes, this matter is currently in the grievance process. Should I not have
my own representative in addition to a union representative? I'm not
convinced that the union has my best interests in mind.

I have no trouble believing that might happen.

Regional news where I am recently carried details of union corruption uncovered
during an audit when a union local office's operations were taken over by the
national office in the wake of the elected president being found to have
sexually harassed a unionized female employee at the union's office.

Union Officer's interests may not be your best interests, particularly if
they are also acting as political party aparatchuks, putting them in a
conflict of interest.

I'd be surprised if courts didn't expect you to give the mandated process
a go to start with. The results might be used to make a case that the
union was failing to meet it's obligation to provide you with fair
representation, or not, depending on what happens and what the union does.

At least the NDP isn't in power in Ontario, so I doubt you are faced with
the situation where your business rep, who supposedly gives you unbiased
advice in dealing with Ministry Management, is also the Provincial President
of the party which controls the legislature and is desperately trying to
balance the budget and deliver "Good News".

<snip>

Post by Lori
Yikes - I had a look at this case, and it does appear that I'm stuck as far
as a civil action against them. It clearly says that the courts have no
jurisdiction where there is a collective agreement.

I've often found it ironic that unions sign collective agreements which
result in members having less protection and benefits than if the bare
minimum provided by statutes, regulations, and court precedents were to
apply. Unions are supposed to protect workers and improve working
conditions, at least in theory. Practice sometimes differs from theory.

Post by Lori
I've been faced with issues like this for the past six months, and aside
from my union action, I am running out of options.

I hope it works out for you.

[David Nicholson]

Lori, the grievance filed on your behalf is the union's grievance, since
they are the party to the collective agreement. Keep stating your views to
them. If you have legal assistance on your own (or can look up and grasp
caselaw as you did with Weber), forward those views to them. They will have
to consider your views. Note that this does not mean they have to agree
with them, but OPSEU is a decent union and they should consider them fairly.

If they do not, your recourse is to file a duty of fair representation
complaint against them at the OLRB, if they have acted towards you and your
grievance in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.

Do you care to share what your privacy concern is with your employer in a
little more detail?

David Nicholson

[Lori]

Post by David Nicholson
Lori, the grievance filed on your behalf is the union's grievance,
since they are the party to the collective agreement. Keep stating
your views to them. If you have legal assistance on your own (or can
look up and grasp caselaw as you did with Weber), forward those views
to them. They will have to consider your views. Note that this does
not mean they have to agree with them, but OPSEU is a decent union
and they should consider them fairly.

They are the only hope that I have left, so I'm doing my best to work with
them at this point. I have faith in OPSEU in general, but not with my
local - they are quite infamous for messing up grievances.

Post by David Nicholson
If they do not, your recourse is to file a duty of fair representation
complaint against them at the OLRB, if they have acted towards you
and your grievance in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or
in bad faith.

I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it comes down to it, I will file a
grievance against them. The unfortunate thing about this is that I have to
go through the grievance process against my employer first with them
representing me, and I will have no second chance at this grievance.

Post by David Nicholson
Do you care to share what your privacy concern is with your employer
in a little more detail?

It's a lengthy story but here are the Cole's notes version of what happened:

It is important to note that I am currently on a leave from work for work
related stress due a poisonous work environment. This was due to a horrible
work situation with another co-worker of mine, and was not addressed at any
time by my management despite my repeated requests for a resolution.



Prior to my leave I was asked to leave my password to my emails behind for
work related purposes by my manager despite it being against policy. I did
however I ask that my folder labeled "personal" was not to be accessed. My
manager agreed that it would not be accessed, and also stated that she had
several folders with personal information contained in them. I had an
expectation of privacy when I left for my leave.



The policy on email usage states that if your manager authorizes it, you can
use your work email for personal use.



A month into my leave I received a call from my manager who informed me that
the co-worker who I was having problems with accessed my machine, apparently
for work related purposes, but then proceeded to open and read all of my
personal emails. She printed several emails that were in my personal folder
and took them to management in an attempt to sabotage me. These emails were
read by three levels of management, and used to reprimand myself and the
people I was corresponding with.



I have to point out, there was nothing wrong with the emails that I was
sending, except that they were with a senior manager several levels above me
in a different unit. I was discussing my work situation with the senior
manager and the appropriate way to handle it (in addition to just chatting
about stuff - we were friends).



The policy on accessing an employee's email clearly states that they must
follow a detailed protocol in order to view them, and that management must
have a reason (e.g.. harassment, threats, etc) to view them.


There is more to the story obviously, but this is the gist of it.

[Kelly Bert Manning]

Post by Lori
Prior to my leave I was asked to leave my password to my emails behind for
work related purposes by my manager despite it being against policy. I did
however I ask that my folder labeled "personal" was not to be accessed. My
manager agreed that it would not be accessed, and also stated that she had
several folders with personal information contained in them. I had an
expectation of privacy when I left for my leave.
The policy on email usage states that if your manager authorizes it, you can
use your work email for personal use.

I wouldn't take an employer up on that to any major extent. It would be
like using the office phone for calls that should be made on a personal
telephone outside of working hours.

Home internet/e-mail access is something any working person should be able
to afford. Do your personal e-mail and browsing at home, or at the public
library if you really can't afford home access.

In any case that is a case of hind sight being 20/20/

Post by Lori
A month into my leave I received a call from my manager who informed me that
the co-worker who I was having problems with accessed my machine, apparently
for work related purposes, but then proceeded to open and read all of my
personal emails. She printed several emails that were in my personal folder
and took them to management in an attempt to sabotage me. These emails were
read by three levels of management, and used to reprimand myself and the
people I was corresponding with.

This seems unusual. If she had no work related reason to access your e-mail
folder wasn't she violating Ministry policy about accessing personal data
without cause? Being authorized to log on to a particular computer is not
the same as being given carte blanche to poke around looking at whatever it
contains. Management should have told staff exactly that.

Inside or outside government, you don't go looking at data, particularly
personal data, without having a bona fide, work related, reason. Staff
should be told explicitly that they can assume that anything they can
access is fair game.

Staff should be expected to read and sign copies of policy statements
saying exactly that. They should be reminded at least once a year to
review the policy, even if there has been no change to it.

Post by Lori
I have to point out, there was nothing wrong with the emails that I was
sending, except that they were with a senior manager several levels above me
in a different unit. I was discussing my work situation with the senior
manager and the appropriate way to handle it (in addition to just chatting
about stuff - we were friends).
The policy on accessing an employee's email clearly states that they must
follow a detailed protocol in order to view them, and that management must
have a reason (e.g.. harassment, threats, etc) to view them.

But this wasn't access by management. It was access to personal data by
an employee, with no apparent attempt to make it appear work related,
except some lame excuse that they needed to log on to that particular
computer.

This sounds like someone with a degree of sophistication about computers.

Mail clients such as Microsoft Outlook don't make it easy for a casual
computer user to open another persons mail folder, even from their
primary computer.

Hasn't the Ministry issued policy statements stating, for example, that
staff are not to look in personnel records or OHIP records using excuses
such as wanting to know when to hold a surprise birthday party for a
co-worker?

I'm a bit puzzled about why OPSEU didn't get on the case about that, which
seems to be a clear example of inappropriate access to personal information
about another employee.

OTOH, perhaps it isn't a mystery. Thinking back before the ban on
workplace smoking, Union representatives on Occupational Health and
Safety committees refused, point blank, to pursue the issue of second hand
smoke causing death and permanent disease in workers. Enforcing the
policy would have resulted in recalcitrant smokers being sanctioned.

Preventing disciplinary action by employers was apparently more important
than saving innocent lives and lungs.

Post by Lori
There is more to the story obviously, but this is the gist of it.
--
Lori
http://www.eYardsale.com

[Lori]

Post by Kelly Bert Manning

Post by Lori
Prior to my leave I was asked to leave my password to my emails
behind for work related purposes by my manager despite it being
against policy. I did however I ask that my folder labeled
"personal" was not to be accessed. My manager agreed that it would
not be accessed, and also stated that she had several folders with
personal information contained in them. I had an expectation of
privacy when I left for my leave.
The policy on email usage states that if your manager authorizes it,
you can use your work email for personal use.

I wouldn't take an employer up on that to any major extent. It would
be like using the office phone for calls that should be made on a
personal telephone outside of working hours.

True - except in this case the manager stated that she had three personal
folders that she wouldn't want accessed by anyone else. I hate to tell you,
but individual usage of government equipment is rampant. Also, privacy laws
state that if an expectation of privacy is given, it should be abided by.

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
Home internet/e-mail access is something any working person should be
able to afford. Do your personal e-mail and browsing at home, or at
the public library if you really can't afford home access.

I have that, and I really wasn't abusing the system. I was an extremely
hard worker with a stellar reputation.

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
In any case that is a case of hind sight being 20/20/

Absolutely!

Post by Kelly Bert Manning

Post by Lori
A month into my leave I received a call from my manager who informed
me that the co-worker who I was having problems with accessed my
machine, apparently for work related purposes, but then proceeded to
open and read all of my personal emails. She printed several emails
that were in my personal folder and took them to management in an
attempt to sabotage me. These emails were read by three levels of
management, and used to reprimand myself and the people I was
corresponding with.

This seems unusual. If she had no work related reason to access your
e-mail folder wasn't she violating Ministry policy about accessing
personal data without cause? Being authorized to log on to a
particular computer is not the same as being given carte blanche to
poke around looking at whatever it contains. Management should have
told staff exactly that.

Yes she was accessing it without cause. Actually the policy states that no
one, with the exception of senior management has a right to look at an
employees email.

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
Inside or outside government, you don't go looking at data,
particularly personal data, without having a bona fide, work related,
reason. Staff should be told explicitly that they can assume that
anything they can access is fair game.
Staff should be expected to read and sign copies of policy statements
saying exactly that. They should be reminded at least once a year to
review the policy, even if there has been no change to it.

Post by Lori
I have to point out, there was nothing wrong with the emails that I
was sending, except that they were with a senior manager several
levels above me in a different unit. I was discussing my work
situation with the senior manager and the appropriate way to handle
it (in addition to just chatting about stuff - we were friends).
The policy on accessing an employee's email clearly states that they
must follow a detailed protocol in order to view them, and that
management must have a reason (e.g.. harassment, threats, etc) to
view them.

But this wasn't access by management. It was access to personal data by
an employee, with no apparent attempt to make it appear work related,
except some lame excuse that they needed to log on to that particular
computer.
This sounds like someone with a degree of sophistication about
computers.
Mail clients such as Microsoft Outlook don't make it easy for a casual
computer user to open another persons mail folder, even from their
primary computer.
Hasn't the Ministry issued policy statements stating, for example,
that staff are not to look in personnel records or OHIP records using
excuses such as wanting to know when to hold a surprise birthday
party for a co-worker?

Yep - all of these policies exist.

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
I'm a bit puzzled about why OPSEU didn't get on the case about that,
which seems to be a clear example of inappropriate access to personal
information about another employee.

They finally got on this, after I went up the chain through OPSEU, and ended
up discussing the case with someone at their head office. OPSEU head office
totally agreed with me and supported my grievance. As I previously stated,
it is my local that I am having problems with.

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
OTOH, perhaps it isn't a mystery. Thinking back before the ban on
workplace smoking, Union representatives on Occupational Health and
Safety committees refused, point blank, to pursue the issue of second
hand smoke causing death and permanent disease in workers. Enforcing
the
policy would have resulted in recalcitrant smokers being sanctioned.
Preventing disciplinary action by employers was apparently more
important than saving innocent lives and lungs.

Post by Lori
There is more to the story obviously, but this is the gist of it.
--
Lori
http://www.eYardsale.com

[David Nicholson]

Interesting story, Lori, and a complex one. I think what you have written
about employer policies makes this an good case to defend against their
discipline of you (subject to many things like exactly what you did write in
your personal emails).

That's a different matter than getting a remedy against your employer for
invasion of privacy, however. And I have no idea what "privacy laws" you
might be referring to - what do you think they are?

David Nicholson ________________

. . . I had an expectation of
privacy when I left for my leave.

. . . Also, privacy laws state that if an expectation of privacy is
given, it should be abided by.

[Lori]

Post by David Nicholson
Interesting story, Lori, and a complex one. I think what you have
written about employer policies makes this an good case to defend
against their discipline of you (subject to many things like exactly
what you did write in your personal emails).

It is definitely complex.

As for the emails here's basics:

The emails in question were between me and a Senior Manager of another
department who I had become friends with. Due to our hectic schedules we
rarely saw each other, but had declared ourselves "pen pals" and exchanged
emails on a near daily basis. Though the majority of the conversation was
personal and contained a lot of joking with each other, we did talk about
work and the situation with my co-workers and I asked for his opinion on how
to handle what was happening. He provided his advice, but did not interfere
with my situation in any way. The suggestions he made about what to do
about my work situation were just that - suggestions - and I did not feel
obligated in any way to follow his advice.



In my opinion, there was nothing "wrong" with the emails we exchanged. Our
friendship was purely platonic and mutual and we spoke to each other as
friends. The emails themselves had no negative impact on work whatsoever or
on our professional relationship. There is no policy that states we could
not be friends, nor is there a policy that says I could not ask him for his
advice on a terrible work situation.



There were other personal emails in this folder which my coworker read
(including emails to and from my husband, family and other friends) but she
did not print them out. It appears that she only printed the emails that
she thought would get me into the most trouble.

Post by David Nicholson
That's a different matter than getting a remedy against your employer
for invasion of privacy, however. And I have no idea what "privacy
laws" you might be referring to - what do you think they are?

Actually, none of Canadian privacy laws apply. Federal laws does not apply,
because it happened in a Provincial workplace. Provincial laws remitted
workplace privacy invasions in 1995 via an amendment to the act. The
criminal code, however does apply (Invasion of Privacy Section 184. (1). I
reported this incident to the police, but the ministry refused to cooperate,
so therefore no charges were laid against the actual perpetrator.

As far as legislation goes, I'm at a loss - I keep running into barriers.
The human rights commission says it is a privacy issue, workplace
legislation has no section on privacy, etc etc.

I have however found an OPSEU grievance case that deals with privacy and
expectations of privacy. It supports my case. (even though the griever did
not win).

Any suggestions???

[David Nicholson]

What is your grievance? There is the discipline grievance against you - is
there another one?

David _________________

Post by Lori
I have however found an OPSEU grievance case that deals with privacy and
expectations of privacy. It supports my case. (even though the griever
did not win).

[Lori]

Post by David Nicholson
What is your grievance? There is the discipline grievance against
you - is there another one?

My grievance is based on two components from the collective agreement:

1. The employer did not ensure the health and safety of an employee.
2. Management did not use their authority to direct the workforce,
discipline, determine work methods, etc.

There is no discipline grievance against me.

[Yves Bellefeuille]

Post by Lori
There is no discipline grievance against me.

Um. Then what remedy are you hoping to obtain through *your* grievance?

[Lori]

Post by Yves Bellefeuille

Post by Lori
There is no discipline grievance against me.

Um. Then what remedy are you hoping to obtain through *your*
grievance?

I'm looking for several things.
1. A settlement/severance package for pain/suffering
2. To have my lost pay returned to me

and a bunch of other things

[Kelly Bert Manning]

Post by Lori

Post by Yves Bellefeuille

Post by Lori
There is no discipline grievance against me.

Um. Then what remedy are you hoping to obtain through *your*
grievance?

I'm looking for several things.
1. A settlement/severance package for pain/suffering
2. To have my lost pay returned to me
and a bunch of other things
--

Would having this conduct noted on the employment record of the perp be
one of those other things? If they coast away without being sanctioned
what is to deter them from doing it again to some other victim.

How many other worker's e-mail have they been snooping through?

It seems almost as though they were using the union as a shield to allow
them to harass other workers at their whim. The overt act of violating
Ministry policy regarding personal e-mail seems like something that should be
noted in their file, at least. You can't walk through e-mail files on another
computer by accident, it requires intent and a fair bit of time and planning.

OTOH unions rarely want anyone to be disciplined for anything, even when
it affects the safety and well being of another union member.

[Lori]

Post by Kelly Bert Manning

Post by Lori

Post by Yves Bellefeuille

Post by Lori
There is no discipline grievance against me.

Um. Then what remedy are you hoping to obtain through *your*
grievance?

I'm looking for several things.
1. A settlement/severance package for pain/suffering
2. To have my lost pay returned to me
and a bunch of other things
--

Would having this conduct noted on the employment record of the perp be
one of those other things? If they coast away without being sanctioned
what is to deter them from doing it again to some other victim.

Here's the complete list:

1. That a settlement be negotiated that would include:



· consideration for the fact that I am permanent employee with a
thirty-year career ahead of me and a stellar work reputation

· damages for the pain, suffering, medications that I have had to
take and the impacts on my health that I have endured, including funds for
ongoing counseling

· future benefits



2. The immediate return of all of my sick days and vacation days,
and that I be restored the 25% of my pay I have lost while on sick leave.



3. That, at a minimum, this incident is flagged on all the personnel
files of the people who breached my privacy.



4. Confirmation in writing that all the emails have been destroyed
both electronically and in hard copy.



Tomorrow is the day for my stage 2 hearing - wish me luck!

[Kelly Bert Manning]

Post by Lori
Actually, none of Canadian privacy laws apply. Federal laws does not apply,
because it happened in a Provincial workplace. Provincial laws remitted
workplace privacy invasions in 1995 via an amendment to the act. The
criminal code, however does apply (Invasion of Privacy Section 184. (1). I
reported this incident to the police, but the ministry refused to cooperate,
so therefore no charges were laid against the actual perpetrator.

Have you talked with your union about reporting it to the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario?

http://search.ipc.on.ca/index.html
http://www.ipc.on.ca/docs/email-e.pdf

Ontario has Public Sector Privacy Legislation. Doesn't it have a provincial
counterpart of the Federal PIPEDA legislation? My understanding is that
PIPEDA also applies in provincial areas of jurisdiction where provinces
haven't passed Substantially Similar legislation by the deadline stated
in the Federal Act. Business leaders, who are on the other side of the
Privacy Protection Opinion Gap from consumers, tried wrapping themselves
in Provincial Flags and drumming up sentiment against Federal intrusion
when they appeared before Provincial Legislative Committees formed to
respond to the PIPEDA deadline.

BC and Alberta passed PIPA legislation before the deadline, but I don't
see anything similar mentioned at the Ontario IPC website.

In any case, this seems a different matter from your workplace environment
dispute, although it involves the same individual and arose out of the
earlier situation.

BTW, Ontario's I&P Commissioner is the sister of children's singer "Rafi".

[Lori]

Post by Kelly Bert Manning

Post by Lori
Actually, none of Canadian privacy laws apply. Federal laws does
not apply, because it happened in a Provincial workplace.
Provincial laws remitted workplace privacy invasions in 1995 via an
amendment to the act. The criminal code, however does apply
(Invasion of Privacy Section 184. (1). I reported this incident to
the police, but the ministry refused to cooperate, so therefore no
charges were laid against the actual perpetrator.

Have you talked with your union about reporting it to the Office of
the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario?

I reported it to the IPC (both Provincial and Federal). Both of these
commissions said they have no jurisdiction over this issue.

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
Ontario has Public Sector Privacy Legislation. Doesn't it have a
provincial counterpart of the Federal PIPEDA legislation? My
understanding is that PIPEDA also applies in provincial areas of
jurisdiction where provinces haven't passed Substantially Similar
legislation by the deadline stated
in the Federal Act. Business leaders, who are on the other side of the
Privacy Protection Opinion Gap from consumers, tried wrapping
themselves in Provincial Flags and drumming up sentiment against
Federal intrusion when they appeared before Provincial Legislative
Committees formed to respond to the PIPEDA deadline.

There is no privacy legislation that applies in Ontario for a Provincial
employee

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
BC and Alberta passed PIPA legislation before the deadline, but I
don't see anything similar mentioned at the Ontario IPC website.

You will however, find a link detailing the need for Privacy Legislation for
workers in Ontario.

Post by Kelly Bert Manning
In any case, this seems a different matter from your workplace
environment dispute, although it involves the same individual and
arose out of the earlier situation.
BTW, Ontario's I&P Commissioner is the sister of children's singer "Rafi".

Cool

[Yves Bellefeuille]

Post by Lori
Yes, this matter is currently in the grievance process. Should I not have
my own representative in addition to a union representative? I'm not
convinced that the union has my best interests in mind.

You're not allowed to act for yourself: you have to let the union do so.
You can see the reason for such a rule: if the employer could negotiate
with each employee directly, he'd make a series of individual contracts
and avoid the union.

The union has the duty to represent you fairly; if it doesn't do so, your
complaint is against the union.

[Lori]

Post by Yves Bellefeuille

Post by Lori
Yes, this matter is currently in the grievance process. Should I
not have my own representative in addition to a union
representative? I'm not convinced that the union has my best
interests in mind.

You're not allowed to act for yourself: you have to let the union do
so. You can see the reason for such a rule: if the employer could
negotiate with each employee directly, he'd make a series of
individual contracts and avoid the union.
The union has the duty to represent you fairly; if it doesn't do so,
your complaint is against the union.

I do understand that, however it really bothers me that they could totally
mess this up and then I'll have to go through with filling a grievance
against them.

I'm not the quiet type, and I will be presenting as much of the information
as I can at thee meetings in order to ensure that my view point is heard.

[Lori]

My grievance meeting went well yesterday (The union president acted for me,
and she did a good job). I, of course had lots to say, and I said it well
and presented both details about the incident and supporting documentation.

I should say that the perpetrator IS hiding behind the union, and that came
out at the meeting yesterday. The Union Pres stopped from describing what
kind of a worker she is (typical lazy government worker). I'm not sure if I
mentioned that I've filed a member to member grievance against the perp,
which I'm currently waiting to hear back on.

A decision will be rendered in 7 workings days as to whether or not
management breached the collective agreement. I've been told not to get my
hopes up at this stage because the person making the decision is a "deputy's
designee" meaning that they are working for the government.

No matter what the designee's decision, stage 3 is arbitration. This is
done with someone outside the ministry. I'll have much better luck there.

Anyway - I'll keep you posted (if you're interested). I could use any
suggestions that you have along the way.

Thanks,

[Lori]

Post by Lori
Hey there,
I'm having a huge battle with my employer (the Ministry of Health,
Ontario) over a privacy issue. I have a solid case, with little to
no chance of losing.
Unfortunately, there is only lint in my pockets, so I'm looking for
some pro-bono advice.
Can anyone help?

Hey there, I've created: http://ontgovernment.blogspot.com/ to chronicle
these events

[Kelly Bert Manning]

Post by Lori
Hey there, I've created: http://ontgovernment.blogspot.com/ to chronicle
these events

A number of people have ended up in trouble by creating websites decribing
what went on at work, or expressing opinions about what went on.

It might also be construed as extending the conflict with this person,
rather than showing that you prepared to resolve it and put it behind you.

If you are pursuing a privacy related legal or quasi-legal action I feel
that it is best to be a paragon of consideration for the privacy of others.

If you can respond to their counter accusations with a record of diligent,
restrained, and consistently proper behaviour they end up looking even worse.

[David Nicholson]

I agree with KBP here: you may be putting yourself at risk, including even a
risk of discharge. There is a lovely little legal doctrine (not) which
still has some currency, even in unionized workplaces: the duty of fidelity
of an employee. This duty limits the right of employees to publically
criticize their employer. Employees acting in their capacity as Union
official have a significant degree of exemption from this "duty of
fidelity", but that does not help you.

On the other hand, if you don't care about that risk, go for it.

I will send you some relevant caselaw when I return to work on Tuesday, if
you want.

David Nicholson ___________________________

Post by Kelly Bert Manning

Post by Lori
Hey there, I've created: http://ontgovernment.blogspot.com/ to chronicle
these events

A number of people have ended up in trouble by creating websites decribing
what went on at work, or expressing opinions about what went on.
It might also be construed as extending the conflict with this person,
rather than showing that you prepared to resolve it and put it behind you.
If you are pursuing a privacy related legal or quasi-legal action I feel
that it is best to be a paragon of consideration for the privacy of others.
If you can respond to their counter accusations with a record of diligent,
restrained, and consistently proper behaviour they end up looking even worse.

[Lori]

Post by David Nicholson
I agree with KBP here: you may be putting yourself at risk, including
even a risk of discharge. There is a lovely little legal doctrine
the duty of fidelity of an employee. This duty limits the right of
employees to publically criticize their employer. Employees acting
in their capacity as Union official have a significant degree of
exemption from this "duty of fidelity", but that does not help you.
On the other hand, if you don't care about that risk, go for it.

I'm really not concerned about the risks.

Post by David Nicholson
I will send you some relevant caselaw when I return to work on
Tuesday, if you want.

Yes, please send me whatever information you have!
Thank you,

[Yves Bellefeuille]

Post by Lori

Post by David Nicholson
On the other hand, if you don't care about that risk, go for it.

I'm really not concerned about the risks.

Are you sure about that? You're willing to get disciplined over a blog?

[Lori]

Post by Yves Bellefeuille

Post by Lori

Post by David Nicholson
On the other hand, if you don't care about that risk, go for it.

I'm really not concerned about the risks.

Are you sure about that? You're willing to get disciplined over a blog?

Yep, I guess you'll have to wait and see the end of my story before you see
my point.

[Kelly Bert Manning]

Post by Lori
I'm really not concerned about the risks.

You don't feel that losing your job over this would be giving the other
employee satisfaction? To me it doesn't seem like the best outcome to hope
for.

Many professional associations have Canon/Code of Ethics statements about
keeping matters learned at work confidential unless there is some clear and
overriding issue of public safety or well being. Do none of those apply in
whatever work you do?

Personally I find that outlasting someone who tried to get you fired, and
seeing your career progress for years after they were told their services
were no longer needed was quite a vindication.

OTOH, I have to give the fellow most of the credit for doing himself in.

Cabinet rejection of a request for an "Applies Despite" exemption from
a newer statute is about as strong a clue as it gets. Senior Bureaucrats who
ignore such strong political direction are saying that their career is over,
whether they realize that at the time or not.

Keeping it out of the public spotlight while the process is grinding away
is something that demonstrates your professionalism.

[Anonymous]

You may find this link helpful, and it could save you a bundle...
www.prepaidlegal.com/info/joe

Post by Lori
Hey there,
I'm having a huge battle with my employer (the Ministry of Health,
Ontario) over a privacy issue. I have a solid case, with little to no
chance of losing.
Unfortunately, there is only lint in my pockets, so I'm looking for some
pro-bono advice.
Can anyone help?
--
Lori
http://www.eYardsale.com

[Cathy]

Beware of the thieves hustling prepaid legal frauds.
They are MLM con artists who probably fuck their own children


x-no-archive:yes

Post by Anonymous
You may find this link helpful, and it could save you a bundle...
www.prepaidlegal.com/info/joe

Post by Lori
Hey there,
I'm having a huge battle with my employer (the Ministry of Health,
Ontario) over a privacy issue. I have a solid case, with little to no
chance of losing.
Unfortunately, there is only lint in my pockets, so I'm looking for some
pro-bono advice.
Can anyone help?
--
Lori
http://www.eYardsale.com