No 'real-time monitoring' of plant employees: Arbitrator
After a strike that led to bad feelings between striking and non-striking employees at a large Winnipeg-area manufacturing facility, the company had 18 cameras installed to deter potential violence at the workplace.
Carte International and its workers agreed to end a contentious strike in 2000 and the company decided it needed to install security cameras. It signed a back-to-work agreement with the union that included the line:
“Surveillance cameras have been installed in the workplace.”
At the time, the union, United Steelworkers (USW), Local 9355, believed only eight cameras were installed in the 17,000-square-foot facility. But the employer testified that 18 cameras were installed in 2000.
They were originally intended to monitor entrances only, but by 2016, the union discovered that 32 cameras were installed and some of them were pointed at the shop floor and at some employees.
On July 7, the USW filed a grievance alleging a violation of privacy.
“The union has a grievance under the CBA because the company has video surveillance cameras in such a position that they may be used for the monitoring and recording of employees while at work,” said the filing.
Brian Klaponski, president and CEO of Carte International, testified that due to the nature of the business (the company manufactured electrical transformers) the shop floor was dangerous due to cranes constantly moving around and high-voltage electricity that was used to test the equipment.
The cameras were installed to help alleviate the danger and to help prevent theft and other workplace worries, said Klaponski. “There are safety concerns everywhere.”
The cameras had been employed on multiple occasions to clarify certain things, according to Klaponski. For example, one time an employee stole some copper and the surveillance proved the identity of the thief. Another time, cash that was intended for an ailing employee was stolen and, again, the video evidence was used to identify the culprit, he said.
As well, the company wanted to monitor against employee vandalism, after the 2000 strike.
The union didn’t voice any complaints about the cameras until the 2016 case, said Klaponski, which showed it tacitly approved of the implementation.
Jeff Ziegler, welder, testified that in spring of 2016, he noticed one camera was pointed directly at his regular work station and it made him feel uncomfortable. He took his concerns to management, but received no assurances that the camera would be removed.
Arbitrator Arne Peltz dismissed the grievance but ordered that “in future, the union receive notice of any contemplated changes to non-surreptitious surveillance which may impact on the privacy interest of employees.”
“Leaving aside historical factors from 2000 after the strike, the current objectives are protection of valuable assets (materials, equipment and product), employee safety and product integrity,” said Peltz. “I have found that the cameras as used are reasonably effective in meeting the stated objectives.”
The union was also concerned that there could be immediate monitoring of employee actions, but the employer denied this was the case. “According to the evidence, there is no real-time monitoring of video images. The system captures and stores video from 31 cameras in the plant (and one camera in the reception area) and retains the data for about 50 days, after which the images are overwritten by subsequent recordings. There is a protocol for viewing a segment of video surveillance,” said Peltz.
And most of the USW’s concerns were dismissed by the arbitrator.
“The union’s main argument regarding safety was that training and education should be used instead of surveillance. These are necessary measures but, as I have found, they do not displace the usefulness of cameras in this particular case. Regarding asset protection and product integrity, the union did not put forward an alternative that the company could have used. The union’s main submission was that the original batch of cameras should be restored, aimed at entrances and exits, or the current array should only be used when worker presence in the plant was minimal, such as on night shift. I do not agree that these are reasonable alternatives,” said Peltz.
Reference: Carte International and United Steelworkers, Local 9355. Arne Peltz — arbitrator. Milt Christiansen, Devin Wehrle for the employer. Phil Hayden for the employee. April 16, 2018. 2018 CarswellMan 145
