|
|
Document
|
|
P-653
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9300090
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Pay Equity Commission
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
ORDER BACKGROUND: The Pay Equity Commission (the Commission) received a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to information regarding the formulation and implementation of pay equity plans at all Ontario hospitals. The Commission denied access to the records pursuant to sections 14, 17 and 21 of the Act . The requester appealed the Commission's decision. During mediation, it was agreed that the request would be limited to pay equity plans either completed or being formulated for the Ottawa Civic Hospital (the Hospital) only. The Commission granted access to a small number of responsive records and denied access to others claiming the application of sections 14(1)(a), (b), (d), and (g), 14(2)(a), 17(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d), and 21 of the Act , and indicated that certain records (collective agreements between the Hospital and unions representing its staff) were publicly available from the Ministry of Labour. Subsequently, the appellant advised that he was not pursuing access to the information contained in the records to which section 21 of the Act was applied, and the Commission provided the appellant with copies of the collective agreements which it earlier claimed were publicly available from the Ministry of Labour. Further mediation was not possible, and notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the Commission's decision was sent to the Commission, the appellant, the Hospital and the four bargaining agents representing employees who were involved in the implementation and formulation of pay equity plans at the Hospital. Representations were received from the Commission and the Hospital. In its representations, the Commission chose not to address the application of section 14(1)(g) of the Act to the records. As this is a discretionary exemption in respect of which the burden of proof rests on the Commission, I will not consider its application in this order. THE RECORDS: The records at issue in this appeal may be described as follows: 1. Eight individual files created by the Review Officer appointed by the Pay Equity Commission, numbered 91.2453, 91.2046, 91.1469, 90.0539, 89.0337, 89.0063, 89.0064 and 89.0065, which contain various documents including: (a) Review Officer's Final Report (b) Application for Review Services (c) Correspondence between the Commission, the Bargaining Agent and the Employer (d) Pay Equity Plans (e) Memoranda of Agreement between the parties (f) Submissions of the parties to the Review Officer (g) Job Descriptions (h) Review Officer Notes to File (i) Review Officer's Orders 2. The record described as number 16 in the Commission's decision letter of March 24, 1993, which consists of the Job Evaluation System and Gender Neutral Comparison System as proposed by the parties. 3. The record described as number 17 in the Commission's March 24, 1993 letter, which consists of the Terms of Reference for the Pay Equity Committee. PRELIMINARY MATTER: Section 67(2) of the Act provides that section 32(4) of the Pay Equity Act is a confidentiality provision which prevails over this Act . Section 32(4) of the Pay Equity Act reads: Where an employee or group of employees advises the Hearings Tribunal in writing that the employee or group of employees wishes to remain anonymous, the agent of the employee or group of employees shall be the party to the proceeding before the Hearings Tribunal or review officer and not the employee or group of employees. The "Application for Review Services", which appears in each of the eight files, contains a space for employees or groups of employees to indicate whether their identity can be disclosed to the employer. In some cases, applicants have indicated "yes", in others "no", and the remainder have no response. Where an applicant has indicated that they wish to remain anonymous, I find that section 67(2) of the Act applies, and the identity of the applicant is not accessible under the Act . ISSUES: The issues arising in this appeal are: A. Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 17(1)(d) of the Act applies. B. Whether the mandatory exemptions provided by sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act apply. C. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 14(2)(a) of the Act applies. D. Whether the discretionary exemptions provided by sections 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Act apply. E. Whether the discretionary exemption provided by section 14(1)(d) of the Act applies. SUBMISSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: ISSUE A: Whether the mandatory exemption provided by section 17(1)(d) applies. For a record to qualify for exemption under section 17(1)(d), the institution and/or the affected party must satisfy each part of the following test: 1. the record must reveal information that is a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information; and 2. the information must have been supplied in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly; and 3. disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to: (a) reveal information of the type set out in (1) which was supplied to a conciliation officer, a mediator, a labour relations officer, or another person appointed to resolve a labour relations dispute; OR (b) reveal the report of a conciliation officer, a mediator, a labour relations officer, or another person appointed to resolve a labour relations dispute. Part One In my view, the term "labour relations information" refers to information concerning the collective relationship
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
14(1)(a)
-
14(1)(b)
-
14(1)(d)
-
14(2)(a)
-
17(1)(a), (b) & (c)
-
17(1)(d)
-
67(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Holly Big Canoe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 08, 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|