Privacy legislation permitted filming of people crossing picket line but only as evidence for investigations of any incidents: Adjudicator
An Alberta union had the authority to video record and photograph people crossing the picket line during a strike, but only for one of the several purposes it had for doing so, the Office of the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner has ruled.
In October and November 2006, the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 went on strike from the Palace Casino in Edmonton. During the strike, the union set up video cameras near the casino’s main entrance, recording and photographing people who went into the casino and crossed the picket line. At one point, the union used a photo of the casino’s vice-president taken at the entrance on a poster and later in pamphlets distributed to union members. Some of these pamphlets were left behind outside the casino and could be viewed by members of the public.
The vice-president and two others who were recorded complained to the privacy commissioner, saying their privacy had been violated by the collection and use of their images without their consent. The union argued it had collected the information for “journalistic purposes” as well as for the purpose of providing evidence in the event of an incident on the picket line, both of which were permitted under Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).
The union also said the cameras were clearly displayed and it posted signs in the area saying images would be posted on its website “CasinoScabs.ca.” The signs told people that by walking within range of the camera’s field of view, individuals were consenting to the collection and use of their images by the union.
Video footage and photos taken for several purposes
The adjudicator found the images constituted personal information under PIPA because it was information about “an identifiable individual.” However, the union collected it for a variety of reasons, not just journalistic ones, including a deterrent to violence on the picket lines, dissuading people from crossing the picket line and gathering evidence in the event of an investigation. Using the vice-president’s photo on posters and pamphlets was for humorous purposes to support morale, the adjudicator said. As such, the union couldn’t use the provision in PIPA protecting journalistic purposes, which was only in effect if that was the only use.
“Many of these purposes also promoted the underlying purpose of the strike — that of achieving a resolution to the labour dispute favourable to the union,” the adjudicator said.
Union’s authority to collect personal information limited
The union was permitted under PIPA to take the images for the purpose of evidence if an incident arose requiring an investigation into conduct on the picket lines, even if no incident had taken place yet, the adjudicator said. This purpose made it necessary to continuously record the site of a potential incident with video cameras or take photos during an incident. The adjudicator also found the union sufficiently protected this information by keeping it locked up and recording over footage when there were no incidents.
However, the other purposes for which the images were captured were not permitted without consent, the adjudicator said. The complainants indicated they had not consented to being filmed and the casino vice-president had asked for the poster with his image to be taken down. Also, the adjudicator found the signs notifying people of the cameras were not sufficient to give implied consent because many of the people had legitimate reasons for entering the casino that couldn’t be avoided.
“These individuals were present in the area for their own purposes, and in my view, their knowledge of the union’s expressed purpose for recording their images did not make their going about their business there despite the signs a voluntary provision of information for the posted purpose,” the adjudicator said.
Though PIPA gave the union authority to film people crossing the picket line for the purpose of providing evidence for any investigation if any incidents arose, the adjudicator found the union also took the images for other uses that required consent. The implied consent the union inferred from the signs it posted was not sufficient under PIPA, and the union was ordered to cease collecting the personal information for those purposes and to destroy any images it still had from the casino entrance.
For more information see:
