Employee must allow access to psychologist's file

The Halifax Regional Water Commission called for access to an employee’s medical records after she claimed her poisonous, unsafe work environment forced her off work.

The grievor — referred to as AB — started work at the employer’s wastewater treatment plant in January 2011. She alleged two male co-workers ostracized and ignored her to the point of creating an unsafe work environment. As a result, she received treatment from both her family physician and a psychologist for stress and extreme anxiety, eventually going off work in July 2012. AB remained off work until February 2013.

The woman, along with the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 227, filed a grievance, alleging the employer knew or ought to have known about what was happening but had done nothing to correct the issue. AB claimed full redress with respect to her loss of income and employment benefits while off work, as well as general damages for stress and anxiety.

The employer denied AB’s allegation and denied AB went off work solely because of work-related stress and anxiety. Because the issue of causation was called into question, the employer requested access to the medical records from AB’s family physician and psychologist.

AB had already produced her family physician’s file for the period of July 1, 2012, to March 30, 2013, and agreed to extend the period of that file’s production back to January 2011. However, AB objected to producing her psychologist’s file materials.

The employer argued the files were relevant. The union introduced a report from AB’s psychologist in its grievance in support of the claim AB had gone off work because of anxiety and stress related to the workplace. However, the file from AB’s family physician makes note of stress associated with the grievor’s personal life. The employer argued there was evidence in the psychologist’s file justifying its concern that other factors in AB’s life may have created the stress and anxiety that led her to leave work.

The union, however, argued the information in the psychologist’s file pertaining to AB’s life outside of work was not relevant. The union submitted that AB — and other employees in a similar situation — might not seek psychological care in the future for fear that their personal information would be used against them.

To make this personal information public would send a message that employees should be careful about exercising their rights in cases like this, the union said, for fear their confidential information be exposed.

Arbitrator Augustus Richardson found the employer established the file in question contains, or at least could contain, information that is relevant to the grievance. As a result, he ordered it be made available to the employer under several terms and conditions.

A copy of the file was to be sent to the employer’s counsel only after AB and the union’s representative redacted any information they considered to be irrelevant. Richardson ordered the employer would be entitled to challenge any of those redactions and any challenge would be determined on a case-by-case basis.