On October 31, British Columbia labour arbitrator Chris Sullivan awarded $30,000 to a union based on a finding that an employer unnecessarily investigated statements made by a union president in a video that the union claimed to be confidential. He based this award on a breach of the anti-union discrimination provision in the Collective agreement, the union interference provision in the BC Labour Relations Code, and a breach of the BC Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The union posted the video on YouTube without password protection. The union president testified, “that he first attempted to use the private setting for posting videos to the website, but this proved difficult to use as he had to manually enter a great deal of information in order to utilize this setting.” He posted the video openly, but rendered it unsearchable, and posted a confidentiality warning on the YouTube account and embedded a confidentiality warning in the video. The latter warning stated, “[this] video content is considered confidential and intended solely for ATU members.”
A union member leaked the URL for the video to someone in management who did not wish to be identified, who in turn reported the video to another member of management, stating, “you should check this out, it goes against what you are trying to build at transit.” That manager used the URL to watch the video and make a copy, ultimately disciplining the president for what he said in the video (later settling for a without prejudice disciplinary withdrawal). When the union demanded the employer destroy its copy, the employer asserted that it had obtained the video from a union member and that it was searchable on YouTube, both proven to be incorrect.
The crux of Arbitrator Sullivan’s finding is that the employer had no basis for investigating. He said:
Mr. Henegar had received only the Post-it note, followed by a conversation, with a supervisor/manager of the Employer, who did not want their identity revealed. On its own terms, the Employer’s Harassment and Respectful Workplace Policy was not engaged against Mr. Neagu, as no formal complaint was ever made against him, nor was he provided with any details of a complaint including the identity of a complainant as is required by that Policy. Mr. Neagu’s comments as Local Union President in the YouTube Video did not warrant an Employer investigation on any reasonable basis.
The employer and union had agreed that the video contained the union president’s personal information, so it followed from the above finding that the employer had collected the video in breach of FIPPA given the collection was not “necessary.”
This was a debacle. If the employer had watched the video and stopped I suspect it would have been found to be blameless. (Recall that it withdrew its disciplinary charge in a without prejudice settlement that had a plainly prejudicial impact on the outcome.) There were also too many other bad facts that bore upon the employer, including the fact it did not (or felt it could not) disclose the identity of the management employee who raised the video as a concern, and the facts that showed its entire premise for proceeding with investigation and discipline was flawed – my reading of the facts, not that of Arbitrator Sullivan, who held that management’s assertions were intentionally dishonest.
I don’t like this privacy finding for two reasons. First, having not seen the video, I question whether a speech from a union president to union members contains the president’s personal information. Second, Arbitrator Sullivan affirmed the president’s expectation of privacy despite the president’s election not to secure the video through the best means possible. As those who follow this blog know, I’m a fan of using the waiver/abandonment doctrine to incentivize good security practices and hold users accountable for bad security practices. That was not done in this case, though Arbitrator Sullivan’s affirmation was obiter.
The damages award is large for a privacy case, but it was driven by a finding that the employer engaged in a serious interference with union rights.