The disclosure of name, position and the exact salary of public employees is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy, says the Newfoundland Privacy Commissioner.

An access to information request was sent to Eastern Health, asking for employment details of all its employees taking home more than $100,000 in yearly earnings. When the notified employees objected to the release of their information, the case went before provincial Privacy Commissioner Ed Ring.

The health workers’ reasons for objecting included fear of identity theft, concerns that the disclosure of their income could harm their therapeutic relationship with patients, as well as “concerns for family members who could become subject to ridicule and scorn and the target of thieves.”

In a written statement, Eastern Health officials’ said the organization was obligated to follow legislation, but “protecting the privacy and confidentiality of our patients, clients and residents, as well as our employees and physicians, is paramount.”

In reaching his recommendation, the Commissioner drew on previous cases from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, as well as Ontario. Ultimately, his decision took its cue from the province’s own Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which finds the release of private information to not be unreasonable when “the information is about a third party’s position, functions or remuneration as an officer, employee or member of a public body or as a member of a minister’s staff.”

Privacy versus transparency

Disclosing the salaries of public employees remains of a topic of national divide. At the federal level, government bodies are only forced to disclose salary ranges, but some provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador go further, and mandate that exact earnings be disclosed, including sources of income outside of salary. 

Opinions on whether this extra level of financial scrutiny is fair for public employees differ.

“The more sunshine put on them, the better,” says Ken Rubin, researcher and freedom of information advocate.

So-called  “Sunshine laws” decree that governing bodies disclose salaries of public employees earning more than $100,000. A threshold Rubin feels should be done away with.  

“In essence, I feel everybody’s salary should be released. I don’t buy into ‘Oh, it’s just for the few higher ones. If you create a system, it’s for everybody,” says Rubin.

However, others feel a better balance between transparency and employee privacy can be struck.

“Doing salary range, I think, is a tried-and-tested method of doing it, and it seems to keep everybody happy,” says Kris Klein, a legal expert dealing with privacy law and access to information.  

“I just think everybody’s entitled to a little bit of privacy when it comes to their salary,” says Klein. “It’s definitely a policy choice about being transparent, but at the same time, you’re really telling your public servants they don’t have any privacy in the amount of money that they make.”

Provinces divided

The choice of whether to disclose employees’ income as a range instead of the actual amount differs among provinces.

In 2014, the Office of the Newfoundland and Labrador Privacy Commissioner reviewed the Act following the passing of Bill C-29 in Ottawa. Here, the Act described disclosable income in terms of “salary range”. After review, it was the suggestion of the Commissioner that the wording be changed back to  “remuneration” as to include other sources of income for employees.

Policy as to the specificity of disclosure varies from province to province. Below is a map detailing what each province prefers when it comes to “remuneration” versus “salary range”.