First Reference Talks

Business, Payroll, Employment Law, Internal Controls & You!

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Free Updates

Disclosing persons with a history of violence

Author: Yosie Saint-Cyr

Posted on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 08:07

Tweet

disclosing-violenceThe Ontario Occupational Health and safety Act violence and harassment prevention provisions (Bill 168) require employers to provide information, including personal information, about a person with a history of violent behaviour if:

(a) A worker can be expected to encounter that person in the course of his or her work; and
(b) The risk of workplace violence is likely to expose the worker to physical injury.

This would require employers to establish some sort of notification procedure for persons with a history of violence (employees, patients, clients or visitors to the workplace) so that workers who might encounter the person are aware of the risk of potential physical injury in their workplace environments.

I don’t know about you, but this sounds to me like profiling. According to WordReference.com, profiling means: recording a person’s behaviour and analyzing psychological characteristics in order to predict or assess their ability in a certain sphere or to identify a particular group of people.

What did I tell you!

Yet the legislation limits the disclosure only to information that is reasonably necessary to protect workers from physical injury.

What a relief! Our profiling obligations have limits; however, there are no specific provisions in the law regarding the type and amount of personal information that must be provided.

What about the employee’s right to privacy, you ask? Somebody reminded me in a conversation that victims and perpetrators of violence own the information that is or will be potentially shared and disclosed with, or by employers. Applicable federal or provincial private sector privacy legislation and common law rights exist to protect the personal information of all individuals.

Thus, privacy legislation and the right to privacy under common law apply in such situations. To comply with privacy legislation and rights, an employer should inform a person of the purposes for which it will collect, use and disclose information, as well as obtain consent. An employer can only disclose information if it is related to the primary purpose for collection. Moreover, in some cases, the law requires employers to disclose information (for purposes related to the primary purpose) without the consent of the person who provided it, where an individual would reasonably expect the disclosure.

Applying this principle in the context of violence prevention under Occupational Health and Safety law means: only sharing information about a person’s history of violence when the disclosure is for the primary purpose for which the employer has a right to collect, regardless of whether the employer has explicit consent from the person with the history of violence. This means that if an employer allows a person with a history of violence to access its premises, and collects information on that person’s history of violence for the purposes of support, protection, prevention of violence and/or accountability for violence in their workplace, the employer can disclose the information for these purposes if an employee can be expected to encounter that person in the course of his or her work, and if the risk of workplace violence is likely to expose the worker to physical injury.

Moreover, if the employer expects an employee, patient or client to encounter a person with a history of violence in the course of his or her work and on the employer’s premises, OHS law obliges the employer to disclose that history (personal information). The disclosure is necessary to ensure the safety and protection from potential incidents of violence that may cause physical injury to employees’, patients and clients.

Employees, patients and clients who share their history of violence with the employer should be made aware of OHS disclosure rules, and be assured by the employer that their personal information will be protected by specific safeguards, including measures such as locked cabinets, computer passwords or encryption.

It does not end there. The disclosure requirement also has human rights implications for employers. The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of a record of offences. An organization cannot refuse to hire, continue to employ or treat differently with respect to employment policies and practices people who have criminal records for which they have received a pardon.

This implies that if an employer discloses (under the proper circumstances related above) an employee’s criminal conviction relating to physical violence for which a pardon has been granted, the employer could face a human rights complaint on the basis of the protected ground of record of offences. The disclosure could create a stigma on the person’s character. This means that employers have a responsibility to ensure that they are not taking part in, condoning or allowing discrimination or harassment to occur based on this prohibited ground.

It makes me wonder if the Ontario government fully understood how problematic the application of the disclosure requirement could be for an employer! What do you think?

Yosie Saint-Cyr
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Managing Editor

Tags: Bill 168, Bill 168 violence, disclosure of personal information, disclosure of persons with a history of violence, human rights, OH&S, OHSA, Ontario Human Rights Code, Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, personal information, privacy legislation, privacy rights, private sector privacy legislation

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 08:07 and is filed under Health and Safety, Human Resources. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Note that some comments may be moderated. If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will be held for approval. We are glad to publish comments that address issues raised in the post or other comments on it and that contribute to a fruitful discussion. We do not publish comments that seek to promote commercial products or that seek personal legal advice. Although we do not require it, we ask that in making a comment you use your full name. You must supply a valid email address, which will not appear with your comment.




Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

  • Get Free Updates

    RSS and Email

  • 2011 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

    2010 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

  • Categories

    • Accessibility Standards
      • Integrated Accessibility Regulation
      • Standard for Customer Service
      • Standard for Employment
      • Standard for Information and Communications
      • Standard for the Built Environment
      • Standard for Transportation
    • Announcements
    • Conferences
    • Human Resources
      • Corporate Immigration
      • Employee Relations
      • Employment Standards
      • Health and Safety
      • HR Analytics
      • HRMS
      • Human Rights
      • Privacy and Security
      • Recruiting and Hiring
      • Training and Development
      • Union Relations
    • Internal Controls
      • Environmental Law
      • Finance and Accounting
      • IT, Privacy and Security
      • Not-for-Profit
    • Payroll
      • Benefits
      • Compensation
      • Source Deductions and Reporting
  • Recent Comments

      CommentAndrew Taillon:
      Thanks Chris. I would suggest that the confusion arises from the way damages were...

      CommentChris Davidson:
      I am a bit confused on the terminology you’re using. It has been my...

      CommentLiChing Ooi:
      Suzanne, another timely post on this standard. My question is, there are...



  • First Reference:
    @firstreference

    Yosie Saint-Cyr:
    @yosie23

    Adam Gorley:
    @agorley

  • Like us on Facebook!



  • Links

    • First Reference
    • HR eSource
    • HRinfodesk
    • HRtrack
    • Human Resources Advisor
    • PolicyPro
  • Blogroll

    • All About Information
    • Chambers on the Profession
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Governance & Risk Management Blog
    • Corporate Reporting to Stakeholders
    • Daniel A. Lublin Employment Law Blog
    • Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog
    • Employment & Human Rights Law in Canada
    • Human Right in the Workplace
    • International Corporate Governance
    • Leech Talks Risk
    • Marks on Governance
    • Osgoode Labour & Employment Law Society
    • SBH Lawyers blog
    • Slaw
    • Thoughts from a Management Lawyer
  • Post Archives

    • February 2012 (4)
    • January 2012 (26)
    • December 2011 (27)
    • November 2011 (24)
    • October 2011 (22)
    • September 2011 (34)
    • August 2011 (27)
    • July 2011 (25)
    • June 2011 (35)
    • May 2011 (29)
    • April 2011 (28)
    • March 2011 (27)
    • February 2011 (20)
    • January 2011 (22)
    • December 2010 (23)
    • November 2010 (23)
    • October 2010 (22)
    • September 2010 (24)
    • August 2010 (28)
    • July 2010 (26)
    • June 2010 (29)
    • May 2010 (32)
    • April 2010 (24)
    • March 2010 (22)
    • February 2010 (9)
    • January 2010 (11)
    • December 2009 (11)
    • November 2009 (14)
    • October 2009 (16)
    • September 2009 (11)
    • August 2009 (1)
  • Questions?

    Email us:
    editor[at]firstreference.com

Copyright © 2012 - First Reference | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Twitter | Facebook

WordPress theme designed by web design