But only as evidence of incidents
An Alberta union had the authority to film and photograph people crossing the picket line during a strike, but only for one of the reasons it was doing so, ruled the Office of the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner.
In October and November 2006, the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, went on strike against Edmonton’s Palace Casino. During the strike, the union set up video cameras near the casino entrance, recording and photographing people who went into the casino and crossed the picket line. At one point, the union featured a photo of the casino’s vice-president on a poster and in pamphlets distributed to union members.
The vice-president and two others 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” and to provide 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 saying images would be posted on the website, CasinoScabs.ca. The signs indicated individuals walking within the camera’s field of view were consenting to the collection and use of their images.
The adjudicator found the images constituted personal information under PIPA because it was about “an identifiable individual.” However, the union collected it for a variety of reasons — as a deterrent to violence on the picket lines, to dissuade people from crossing the picket line and to gather evidence in the event of an investigation. Using the vice-president’s photo on posters and pamphlets was for humorous purposes to support morale, said the adjudicator. As such, the union couldn’t use the provision in PIPA protecting journalistic purposes.
The union was permitted under PIPA to use the images as evidence if an incident arose requiring an investigation into conduct on the picket lines, even if no incident had taken place yet, said the adjudicator. This made it necessary to continuously record with video cameras or take photos during an incident. And the union sufficiently protected this information by keeping it locked up and recording over footage when there were no incidents, found the adjudicator.
However, the other purposes for which the images were captured were not permitted without consent, said the adjudicator. 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 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, found the adjudicator.
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 union also took the images for other uses that required consent, said the adjudicator. 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:
•Office of the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner Order P2008-008 (March 30, 2009), Christine Gauk — Adj.
