AGCO extended conflict of interest policy from all games of chance run by municipalities, First Nations
The union grieved when the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario extended its conflict of interest policy to ban all its employees from participating in games of chance, bingos and lotteries run by municipalities and First Nations.
In 2007, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) was given oversight of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG).
Before that time, the existing AGCO conflict of interest policies prohibited its staff from participating in any charitable and casino games that it regulated.
After AGCO assumed oversight of OLG, the AGCO ban was extended to prevent employees from participating in OLG games. However, the employer also acted to extend the ban to include any employee participation in lotteries, bingos and games of chance run by municipalities and First Nations.
The union argued AGCO’s extension of the ban exceeded its authority under the collective agreement.
The union said the ban was an overreach and an unnecessary incursion into the private lives of its members. The union acknowledged AGCO’s legitimate interest in prohibiting employee play in some circumstances but it argued the blanket ban was an unreasonable extension of management’s rights under the collective agreement.
Robust conflict of interest regime
The union said its members were already subject to a “robust” conflict of interest regime. It noted the ban exceeded the legislated and regulated provincial requirements. There was no record of any public interest complaints about conflict of interest with respect to AGCO employees participating in these games, the union said.
Moreover, when regulations under the Gaming Control Act were enacted to prohibit AGCO employees from participating in OLG games, the regulatory authorities could have acted at that time to extend the ban to prevent AGCO employees from participating in municipal and First Nations gaming opportunities. That was not done. The union argued the all-employee ban was too broad.
The employer pointed to its responsibility for regulating all gaming in the province except for horse racing and off-track betting. Municipalities and First Nations may license gaming opportunities, but the AGCO was the regulator. In the circumstances it was reasonable, the employer said, for it to adopt a conflict of interest policy that prohibited its employees from participating in all the games it regulated.
Maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the games it regulated was critical, the employer said. The blanket ban provided a definitive and easily understandable “bright line” test that served the public interest by underscoring the regulator’s commitment to eliminating both the potential and the perceived potential for conflicts of interest.
The arbitrator accepted the employer’s overarching interest in protecting the integrity of its regulated gaming. The arbitrator said too that employees of AGCO could reasonably expect that some of their private activities may necessarily be restricted where necessary in order to protect the integrity or the perceived integrity of the regulator.
Privacy rights
However, the arbitrator also said that any actions by the employer to restrict the privacy rights of employees must strike a balance between the employer’s legitimate interests as a regulator and the nature of the employment of the affected employees.
In this case, the Arbitrator said that the employer’s blanket prohibition was unreasonable.
“I have decided that in the unique circumstances before me, both the integrity and the perceived integrity of the AGCO as regulator can be maintained with a more nuanced employee prohibition against the playing of municipal and First Nations games.”
The arbitrator said that the lack of any complaints alleging conflict of interest thus far was significant. So too was the fact that the government did not move to enact such a wide-ranging prohibition when it addressed the issue. The arbitrator said that protection of the public interest did not require an all-employee prohibition.
It was not unreasonable to prohibit AGCO employees who were involved in the regulation or oversight of municipal or First Nations games from participating in those gaming opportunities, the arbitrator said, but the blanket ban went too far.
“Accordingly, to the extent that the all-employee prohibition against the playing of municipal and First Nations games applies to employees who have no meaningful role in the regulation or oversight of these games, the blanket prohibition is unreasonable and, therefore, in breach of article 4.01(d) of the collective agreement.”
The arbitrator ordered that the AGCO employee ban on playing municipal and First Nations games of chance be amended to cover only those employees meaningfully involved in the regulation or oversight of those games.
Reference: Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Kevin Burkett — Sole Arbitrator. Paul Broad for the Employer. Richard Blair for the Union. April 23, 2013. 17pp.
In 2007, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) was given oversight of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG).
Before that time, the existing AGCO conflict of interest policies prohibited its staff from participating in any charitable and casino games that it regulated.
After AGCO assumed oversight of OLG, the AGCO ban was extended to prevent employees from participating in OLG games. However, the employer also acted to extend the ban to include any employee participation in lotteries, bingos and games of chance run by municipalities and First Nations.
The union argued AGCO’s extension of the ban exceeded its authority under the collective agreement.
The union said the ban was an overreach and an unnecessary incursion into the private lives of its members. The union acknowledged AGCO’s legitimate interest in prohibiting employee play in some circumstances but it argued the blanket ban was an unreasonable extension of management’s rights under the collective agreement.
Robust conflict of interest regime
The union said its members were already subject to a “robust” conflict of interest regime. It noted the ban exceeded the legislated and regulated provincial requirements. There was no record of any public interest complaints about conflict of interest with respect to AGCO employees participating in these games, the union said.
Moreover, when regulations under the Gaming Control Act were enacted to prohibit AGCO employees from participating in OLG games, the regulatory authorities could have acted at that time to extend the ban to prevent AGCO employees from participating in municipal and First Nations gaming opportunities. That was not done. The union argued the all-employee ban was too broad.
The employer pointed to its responsibility for regulating all gaming in the province except for horse racing and off-track betting. Municipalities and First Nations may license gaming opportunities, but the AGCO was the regulator. In the circumstances it was reasonable, the employer said, for it to adopt a conflict of interest policy that prohibited its employees from participating in all the games it regulated.
Maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the games it regulated was critical, the employer said. The blanket ban provided a definitive and easily understandable “bright line” test that served the public interest by underscoring the regulator’s commitment to eliminating both the potential and the perceived potential for conflicts of interest.
The arbitrator accepted the employer’s overarching interest in protecting the integrity of its regulated gaming. The arbitrator said too that employees of AGCO could reasonably expect that some of their private activities may necessarily be restricted where necessary in order to protect the integrity or the perceived integrity of the regulator.
Privacy rights
However, the arbitrator also said that any actions by the employer to restrict the privacy rights of employees must strike a balance between the employer’s legitimate interests as a regulator and the nature of the employment of the affected employees.
In this case, the Arbitrator said that the employer’s blanket prohibition was unreasonable.
“I have decided that in the unique circumstances before me, both the integrity and the perceived integrity of the AGCO as regulator can be maintained with a more nuanced employee prohibition against the playing of municipal and First Nations games.”
The arbitrator said that the lack of any complaints alleging conflict of interest thus far was significant. So too was the fact that the government did not move to enact such a wide-ranging prohibition when it addressed the issue. The arbitrator said that protection of the public interest did not require an all-employee prohibition.
It was not unreasonable to prohibit AGCO employees who were involved in the regulation or oversight of municipal or First Nations games from participating in those gaming opportunities, the arbitrator said, but the blanket ban went too far.
“Accordingly, to the extent that the all-employee prohibition against the playing of municipal and First Nations games applies to employees who have no meaningful role in the regulation or oversight of these games, the blanket prohibition is unreasonable and, therefore, in breach of article 4.01(d) of the collective agreement.”
The arbitrator ordered that the AGCO employee ban on playing municipal and First Nations games of chance be amended to cover only those employees meaningfully involved in the regulation or oversight of those games.
Reference: Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Kevin Burkett — Sole Arbitrator. Paul Broad for the Employer. Richard Blair for the Union. April 23, 2013. 17pp.
