‘ An employee cannot withdraw consent’
PRIVACY
“In 1996, the government of the day redrew the Labour Relations Act and removed privacy protection. We would like to see that restored, as well.” Ms. O’Donoghue says.
The intent of PIPEDA was to provide a safety net for provinces, that had not passed privacy legislation by the Jan. 1, 2004, deadline. Quebec has had provincial legislation since 1994 and British Columbia and Alberta met the deadline for the legislation.
In Ontario, legislation, which was then in its 36th draft died at a Dec. 4 cabinet meeting, according to insiders. They suggested the existing Tory government feared passage might negatively affect the results of an upcoming election.
The lack of a statutory obligation has not stopped some employers from implementing the same protection for employees as that demanded by PIPEDA, says Terry McQuay, president of Nymity Inc. of Toronto, which specializes in training corporate employees in privacy issues.
“If a corporation operates in Alberta, B. C. or Quebec, they usually institute the same protection in other parts of the country. They also sometimes do it when they are implementing protection for client and customer information,” he says.
“ The staff says, ‘ Hey, what about us?’ So the organization extends protection to them.”
Protection under PIPEDA differs from provincial legislation in one key area, that of consent, Mr. McQuay says. While PIPEDA demands informed consent before organizations can collect personal information from customers, employees are covered by provincial legislation, which does not required to collect their personal data. In fact, consent may be constued as part of the conditions of employment, he says.
“ There is often no choice,” he says. “ An employee cannot withdraw consent without impacting their employment entitlements if not their continued employment”.
However, employee consent may also open the door to other grey areas, Mr. Kaufman says. While current employees are not covered by PIPEDA, he says, personal information on past and potential employees may well be.
“ That means past and potential employees have greater protection than those in the existing workforce. You can easily see why there is a desperate need for clarifying legislation and absolute protection,” Mr. Kaufman says. Financial Post