Somebody’s Watching Them
Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.
Before you read any further, you’ll want Rockwell’s “Somebody’s Watching Me” playing in the background. Can you think of something that pits management rights against privacy in the workplace quite like surveillance cameras do? The potential for these unblinking eyes to be abused prompted the union in [2023] A.G.A.A. No. 3 to file a policy grievance unsuccessfully challenging their presence in one workplace.
Background
The case arose at a vast warehouse of a national grocery chain where about 350 employees worked shifts around the clock every day of the week. It was situated in a part of town that wasn’t easy to access, so most employees took breaks and ate their meals in the lunchroom. There, under the watchful eyes of two security cameras, the employees could relax.
Except for one time, years ago, there was a fight between two employees in the lunchroom. The employer was able to rely on the videotape after the fact to see if the employees’ stories were true. One of the employees was lying, but both combatants were fired. The cameras had been installed some years prior to deal with theft. The employer said it didn’t watch the real-time footage , and only certain people had access to it on-site, never remotely.
Although it put the cameras in without involving the union, the employer set some parameters for using the cameras such that they weren’t employed in “fishing expeditions” to deal with performance issues.
The arbitrator’s decision
The arbitrator said determinations on this subject are textured; they involve a contextual and reasonable balancing of interests.
Many considerations played into his decision to reject the grievance. For example, the cameras were obvious and drawn to the employees’ attention. Once recorded, footage was only kept for a fixed period, and then it was overwritten. It was conceivable that if no reported incidents arose, the footage might go unwatched for years at a time.
Real-time monitoring of employees was a real concern, but this was minimized significantly in the arbitrator’s mind by the lack of remote access to the recordings, and by the fact that any viewing happened in a locked room.
Also, the policy made it clear that the recordings couldn’t be used for any improper purpose but rather that they were to assist in resolving disputes that might arise in grievance or disciplinary proceedings.
Key takeaways
Absent a contractual term on the subject, the validity of security cameras in the workplace is a highly fact-driven inquiry. This case dealt with cameras that were obvious to anyone in the room, but the result could easily have been different if it were about hidden cameras or if someone sat behind closed doors glued to the screen, watching for infractions.
Employers who operate security cameras on their premises should ensure that policies guarantee the kinds of safeguards the arbitrator noted in this case. After all, if the point of having a security camera is to rely on the footage, it will do little good if the evidence is excluded for being collected in breach of the employees’ rights.
Comments are closed.