|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1264
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
The Corporation of the City of Barrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The appellant, a local union, made a request to the City of Barrie (the City) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for a report prepared for the City in 1998 by a named consulting firm. During the processing of this request, several reports were located. However, as the appellant was unable to specify which report it was seeking, the request was broadened at that time to include all of the reports. The City denied access to the requested records on the basis of the following exemptions under the Act : closed meeting - section 6(1)(b); advice or recommendations - section 7(1); third party information - section 10(1)(a) and (c); economic and other interests - section 11(d), (e) and (f); proposed plans of an institution - section 11(g); and invasion of privacy - section14(1). The appellant appealed this decision. Mediation was attempted in this matter but was unsuccessful. At its conclusion, the mediator assigned to this file sent out a Mediator's Report to the parties. She identified, in addition to the exemptions raised by the City, the possible application of sections 52(3) and (4) of the Act , which, if found to apply, would remove the records from the scope of the Act . I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the appellant and the City. Representations were received from both parties. In its representations, the City indicates that it relies on the mandatory exemption in section 10(1)(b) of the Act in addition to those already claimed by it in its decision. Although the appellant has not had an opportunity to address the possible application of this exemption, I have decided it is not necessary to hear from it on this issue given my findings below. RECORDS: The records at issue consist of three reports prepared by the named consulting firm dated March 2, 1998 on Bargaining Unit Compensation, Exempt Compensation and Council Remuneration, and a letter from the consulting firm, dated March 30, 1998, regarding modified salary structure options. DISCUSSION: JURISDICTION Sections 52(3) and (4) of the Act read as follows: (3) Subject to subsection (4), this Act does not apply to records collected, prepared, maintained or used by or on behalf of an institution in relation to any of the following: Proceedings or anticipated proceedings before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution. Negotiations or anticipated negotiations relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution between the institution and a person, bargaining agent or party to a proceeding or an anticipated proceeding. Meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the institution has an interest. (4) This Act applies to the following records: An agreement between an institution and a trade union. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees which ends a proceeding before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to employment-related matters. An agreement between an institution and one or more employees resulting from negotiations about employment- related matters between the institution and the employee or employees. An expense account submitted by an employee of an institution to that institution for the purpose of seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred by the employee in his or her employment. Section 52(3) is record-specific and fact-specific. If this section applies to a specific record, in the circumstances of a particular appeal, and none of the exceptions listed in section 52(4) are present, then the record is excluded from the scope of the Act . The City relies on all three parts of section 52(3). Employment or Labour Relations One of the records at issue (Record 3) is a report on Council Remuneration. In my view, a determination regarding the applicability of section 52(3) to this record turns on whether the activities described in the three paragraphs of section 52(3) relate to "employment" or "labour relations". The term "labour relations" appears in section 10(1) of the Act . In that context, Adjudicator Holly Big Canoe discussed the term "labour relations information" in Order P-653 (which dealt with section 17(1) of the provincial Act which is the equivalent of section 10(1) of the Act ), and made the following statements: In my view, the term "labour relations information" refers to information concerning the collective relationship between an employer and its employees. The information contained in the records was compiled in the course of the negotiation of pay equity plans which, when implemented, would affect the collective relationship between the employer and its employees. [emphasis in original] I find that Adjudicator Big Canoe's interpretation of the term is equally applicable in the context of section 52(3)3. Therefore, I find that "labour relations" for the purpose of this section is properly defined as the collective relationship between an employer and its employees. Previous orders In Order P-1545, Assistant Commissioner Tom Mitchinson made the following findings regarding the interpretation of section 65(6) of the provincial Act (the equivalent of section 52(3) of the Act ): In order to qualify under any of the paragraphs of section 65(6), a record must either relate to "labour-relations or to the employment of a person", or be "about labour relations or employment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
14(1)(d)
-
52(3)
-
7(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 21, 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|