The City of Mount Pearl has been slapped on the wrist by the province’s privacy commissioner for disclosing workplace complaint letters against the city’s former chief administrative officer (CAO) Steve Kent to him — a move the commissioner concluded was an invasion of privacy.
Kent was placed on a paid leave of absence last October when an investigation into the harassment and intimidation complaints began.
Kent and the city have since parted ways.
Michael Harvey, Information and Privacy Commissioner Newfoundland and Labrador, released his report Friday into complaints his office received in which the complainants (employees of the city) alleged that the City of Mount Pearl breached their privacy by improperly disclosing harassment complaint letters they had written — without their consent— to the individual about whom they had complained.
Harvey concluded the disclosure had indeed been made contrary to the privacy provisions of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015, and recommended that the city acknowledge the violation, review its policy and procedure to ensure it reflects the privacy provisions of the Act, and undertake privacy training for members of council.
“The disclosure of the complainants’ harassment complaint letters to the CAO by council without the complainants’ consent, and without giving them an opportunity to either consent to the disclosure or withdraw the letters, or conceivably to negotiate the disclosure of a version of the letters with the names of the other employees redacted, cannot be justified under section 68 of ATIPPA, 2015,” the report states.
“It is clear that the disclosure of the complaint letters was intentional, but it is equally clear that the city did not believe it was a breach of privacy. There are no grounds on which to pursue a prosecution for an offence under section 115 of the Act. However, the city should consider means by which to make amends to the complainants and the other named individuals, such as written letters of apology.”
The report notes the letters of complaint at issue were disclosed as a result of a decision of council.
Harvey noted the information contained in the letters, which included the names and other information of the complainants and of other named individuals, and linked those names to allegations of harassment, clearly contains the personal information of those individuals.
The city had argued that in order to comply with the requirement of a fair and impartial investigation, it was required to notify the CAO of the identity of the complainants.
“However, in our view, this argument misunderstands the nature of the investigative process,” the report stated. “The external investigator was retained to interview the complainants, other witnesses and the CAO, and to produce a report to council containing a statement of facts.
“It may be that to ensure a fair and impartial investigation, the investigator, at some stage, would have needed to provide the (CAO) with details of the allegations, prior to conducting an interview. However, as noted earlier, as provided for by city policy, that process ought to have been in the hands of the investigator, without interference from council, while the investigation was ongoing.”
The report recommends that the city acknowledge: that its actions constituted an unreasonable invasion of privacy; and that it review its current Respectful Workplace Policy and Procedure; that it implement a program of privacy awareness and training specifically for the benefit of members of council.
