Home / Posts tagged "Privacy"

Privacy

Post-Incident Drug and Alcohol Test was Unreasonable – Grievor Awarded Damages for Breach of Privacy

Posted on by banister
Interfor Corporation v United Steelworkers, Local 1-405, 2022 CanLII 15915 (BC LA) The grievor, a sawmill worker, was moving empty Oxygen and Acetylene cylinders on pallets using a forklift. After he failed to properly secure a load of cylinders, they spilled from the pallet onto the ground. The employer conducted an investigation and concluded the spill had been a “triggering incident” under ...
Read More

Employer Cannot Require Employees to Submit Medical Information Directly to Third Party

Posted on by banister
Rehn Enterprises Ltd. v United Steelworkers, Local 1-1937, 2018 CanLII 116968 (BC LA) REHN Enterprises Ltd. (the “Employer”), a small forestry company, had appointed a third party named Global Total Care (“GTC”) as its agent to manage employee work absences resulting from injury or illness. The Employer required employees to communicate with and provide medical information directly to GTC...
Read More

Disclosure of Employee Revenue Information to Union not a Breach of the Personal Information Protection Act

Posted on by banister
Comox Valley Distribution Ltd. v United Steelworkers, Local 1-1937, 2017 CanLII 72391 (BC LA) In response to complaints that junior drivers were being favoured over senior drivers in the assignment of freight delivery runs the union and employer negotiated quarterly union management meetings to resolve these issues. In advance of one of these meetings the union asked the employer to provide ...
Read More

Arbitrator Strikes Down Annual Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy and Awards “Significant Damages” for Breaches of Workers’ Privacy Rights

Posted on by banister
Seaspan ULC v. Canadian Merchant Service Guild (Chambers and Group Grievances), [2017] C.L.A.D. No. 22 (McEwan). The Canadian Merchant Service Guild (the “Union”) challenged Seaspan’s (the “Employer”) right to require annual drug and alcohol testing for officers under threat of penalty. The Employer felt it was entitled to introduce the testing because it agreed to do so as a term of its contra...
Read More
Top