An employee of a crown health enterprise complained about the retention of information about an incident which occurred in 1984 and resulted in his suspension. He had been reinstated subject to the condition that the suspension notice and the reasons for its issue would remain on his personal file for two years. He had also been informed that a repetition of the incident would result in his dismissal. Ten years later, the employee learned that the information had not been removed and asked for that to be done. That request was complied with.

In 1995 the employee was involved in another incident and was suspended pending an inquiry. The employee's legal representative stated in a meeting with the CHE over this incident that it was the first incident of this type in which the employee had been involved. After the meeting, a member of the CHE retrieved the information concerning the 1984 incident and showed it to the representative.

The complainant alleged that the information should have been destroyed in 1986. However, I considered that the CHE had a lawful purpose which justified retaining the information after it had been removed from his file.

Principle 9 was relevant to this issue. It provides:

'An agency that holds personal information shall not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used.'

The CHE has an interest in ensuring that its professional staff work in accordance with appropriate professional and personal standards. Sometimes it might be necessary to retain personal information about staff relevant to the maintenance of those standards, particularly where there has been some question of a lapse.

The record of the employee's reinstatement specified only that the information was to remain on his file for two years and did not specify what would happen to it after that time. There was no record of an agreement that the information would be destroyed or that the CHE would refrain from using it in the future. The information was removed from the employee's file so that it could not be accessed easily but was retained elsewhere so it could be retrieved if needed. This seemed sufficient to comply with the terms of the reinstatement.

I formed the opinion that the CHE had a lawful purpose in retaining the information concerning the 1984 incident. The CHE could have used it during the course of his employment in relation to his continued suitability. Therefore the CHE had not breached principle 9.

April 1998

Indexing terms: Retention of personal information - Crown Health Enterprise - Information retained by agency past agreed time for removal - Information referred to in subsequent inquiry into complainant's behaviour - Whether 'lawful purpose' for holding information had expired - Information privacy principle 9