The PSLRB Adopts Voluntary Measures to Protect Privacy

Dec 05, 2008 10:14 ET

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, December 5, 2008 — The Public Service Labour Relations Board has adopted voluntary measures to protect the privacy of persons appearing before it while continuing to honour the long-established open court principle, Chairperson Casper M. Bloom, Q.C., Ad. E., announced today.

“The Public Service Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal that acts very much like a court,” said Mr. Bloom. The PSLRB’s case files, containing exhibits and correspondence exchanged between the parties, have always been accessible to the public. The Board holds public hearings to decide labour relations cases — grievances, complaints and applications — in the federal public service, and the decisions rendered pursuant to this process are publicly available. “For justice to be done and to be seen to be done, it is important that the public have access to the PSLRB’s proceedings and related documents.” An important element of access to the PSLRB’s proceedings is served by the practice of publishing full-text decisions on the PSLRB’s website.

In her annual report to Parliament, the Privacy Commissioner reported on complaints filed by individuals involved in proceedings before the PSLRB. They alleged that the posting of full-text decisions on the PSLRB’s website contravened sections 7 and 8 of the Privacy Act. The Privacy Commissioner agreed and put forward several recommendations, such as replacing all names with random initials.

“We respectfully take a different position on this matter,” said Chairperson Bloom. “We contend that by posting full-text decisions on our website, we are following case law and using personal information in a way that is consistent with the purpose for which it was obtained — that is, deciding a case and explaining the reasons for the decision. Those decisions and the information they contain are in the public domain and, accordingly, are not subject to the restrictions provided in the Privacy Act.”

“At the same time, we seek to balance the open court principle with the privacy rights of those availing themselves of their rights under the Public Service Labour Relations Act,”said Mr. Bloom. To do so, the PSLRB has taken voluntary steps to block global search engines such as Google from accessing full-text decisions posted on the PSLRB’s website.

“We are satisfied that the measures we have taken are adequate to protect the personal information contained in our decisions. Therefore, no further action need be taken now,” added Mr. Bloom.

This issue affects many federal administrative tribunals that exercise quasi-judicial functions and that post decisions publicly.

Privacy Issues Regarding the Posting of Quasi-judicial Decisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Board

Background

• Privacy complaints were filed with the Privacy Commissioner regarding the full-text posting of quasi-judicial decisions on the website of the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB). The complainants contended that this practice contravened the Privacy Act.
• The Privacy Commissioner found that by posting full-text decisions on its website, the PSLRB was not using personal information in a way that was consistent with the purpose for which it had been obtained, thus agreeing with the complainants.
• The Privacy Commissioner recommended that the PSLRB depersonalize decisions posted on its website by replacing all names with random initials and that the posting of full-text decisions on the website be subject to a series of very stringent guidelines.

Position of the Public Service Labour Relations Board

• The PSLRB is a quasi-judicial tribunal that operates very much like a court. As such, it is bound by the open court principle.
• The PSLRB holds public hearings to decide labour relations cases (grievances, complaints and applications) in the federal public service. The decisions rendered pursuant to this process are publicly available.
• PSRLB decisions and the information they contain are in the public domain and, accordingly, are not subject to the restrictions provided in the Privacy Act.
• Posting full-text decisions on our website is consistent with case law, the purpose of deciding disputes before the Board and the purpose for which personal information is obtained in the course of proceedings.

Current PSLRB practice and privacy protections

• The PSLRB’s case files, containing exhibits and correspondence exchanged between the parties, have always been accessible to the public.
• In very specific circumstances, the Board member presiding over the hearing may grant a request that the hearing be closed to the public.
• Exhibits that contain sensitive information about a person can be sealed by order of the Board member presiding over the hearing, upon request.
• The identity of persons not directly affected by the proceedings (third parties) may be protected by order of the Board member presiding over the hearing.
• Board members use their discretion to include in their decisions only personal information that is relevant and necessary for their reasons.
• Full-text decisions have been posted on the PSLRB’s website since 2000.
• PSLRB decisions are also available in many other ways: from specialized private publishers such as LexisNexis’ Quicklaw or freely on the Internet from sources other than the PSLRB’s website, such as CanLII.
• To balance the open court principle and the privacy rights of persons availing themselves of their rights under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the PSLRB has voluntarily introduced measures that restrict global search engines such as Google from accessing full-text decisions posted on its website. The Privacy Commissioner has endorsed this initiative and recommended that other administrative tribunals adopt it.
• The PSLRB is satisfied that the measures already taken are adequate to protect the personal information contained in its decisions. Therefore, no further action will be taken.

Wider implications

• This important issue extends beyond the PSLRB and touches on long-established practices of a vast number of federal administrative tribunals that exercise quasi-judicial functions.

For more information, please contact