Articles

Receive an email every 2 months, informing you of updates to this article directory.

By: Andre de Blois, Econo-Security Inc.

Laws, Case Studies, Current Usage and recommendations

Note: All articles are abridged because of lengthy discussions on other surveillance
methods such as E-mail, conversations and other forms of monitoring as well
as detailed legal analysis. The essence, conclusions and recommendations are
intact and duly reported. (Author) Prepared exclusively for Armstrong-Hunt.

Part 1 - United States

1) Analysis / interpretation by:
July 2004 Mfg.Trust (NCMS - National Center for Manufacturing Sciences)
HTML link: http://trust.ncms.org/MfgTrust0704.htm

VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AT WORK

Overview
According to NBC Nightly News, forty percent of the small businesses in America today use video surveillance to monitor their workers.

Most of these cameras are mounted in the open and record all activity in the workplace. Many can be found in grocery stores, gas stations and fast-food franchises. Others are used in factory settings or businesses where many employees are at work. Many home owners also place cameras to secure their property and watch housekeepers and child care workers. These cameras grind on 24-hours a day recording everything that occurs in these environments.

According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, video surveillance, under federal law, is generally acceptable where the camera focuses on publicly accessible areas. However, installment in areas where employees or customers have a legitimate expectation of privacy, such as inside bathroom stalls, can give the employee a cause of action under tort law.

US Legal Precedents
Video surveillance is a mandatory subject of bargaining for unionized industries according to a 1997 decision by the NRLB. (See Resources links for the specific Colgate-Palmolive citation). This means that an employer cannot install hidden cameras for surveillance of employees without first bargaining with the union over that subject. During the bargaining process employers are obligated under the Colgate decision to tell unions not only why they want to install cameras but where they plan to install them.

Many questioned this decision, arguing that the disclosure of the details of surveillance cameras would defeat their purpose. However, a second court of appeals has now affirmed the Colgate-Palmolive doctrine.

These decisions often create practical problems. In their article referenced in the Resources Page, Klein, Zelman, Rothermel & Dichter, L.L.P. note that, if a company requires the union to maintain confidentiality about the location of cameras, employees will still know that surveillance is being done. While recognizing the value of surveillance to prevent illegal activity, few unions will agree to keep surveillance secret. To do so would expose them to possible litigation if union members were terminated because of surveillance.

While nonunionized companies have one less hurdle to use video surveillance there are still many legal considerations that must be addressed. In addition to federal laws many states have their own laws and guidelines that must be followed.

Video surveillance must not capture audio or run the possibility of running afoul of federal "wiretap" statutes. A federal statute passed in 1968 and amended in subsequent years (1986, 1994) now covers cell phone and telephone devices, oral conversations, and other electronic communications. Depending on the severity of the violation, responsible parties may be liable damages of either $100 or $10,000 per day (Technological Surveillance in the Workplace) as well as punitive damages and legal costs.

In Summary
Video surveillance is becoming prevalent in American life. According to a 1997 survey conducted by the American Management Association, 63% of the midsized and large U.S. companies surveyed engage in one or more monitoring or surveillance activities. Out of the 906 companies surveyed, more than one third videotape employees, record employee's phone calls or voicemail, or review computer files and e-mail. Although most of the companies just "spot check," roughly ten percent of the companies surveyed report "constant" video surveillance of employees for "security" and "antitheft" purposes. (% considerably higher in 2005 - author)
2) Example, Legal Analysis http://www.fwlaw.com/techsurv.html

Fairfield and Woods is a member of MSI Legal & Accounting Network Worldwide, a leading global network of independent professional firms.

Video surveillance

Surveillance limited to video images, without sound acquisition, would not be subject to either the federal or Colorado wiretap statutes if the surveillance does not acquire the "contents" of any communications. The term "contents" is defined to include "any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning" of a communication. If a hidden video camera observed two employees speaking and then exchanging cash for drugs, it might possibly be considered to have intercepted some of the "contents" of the communication, although an argument could be made that it only observed an act, and did not acquire the contents of what was spoken. An "interception" would definitely occur if the video images were actually used to acquire a communication through lip-reading, or perhaps if it were feasible to do so. If video surveillance is found to have acquired the contents of communications, it would likely be unlawful unless there was implied "consent" by virtue of an announced policy of video surveillance in specified areas.

Constitutional rights to privacy

While the United States Constitution contains no express privacy provision, decisions of the United States Supreme Court beginning with its opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678 (1965), have recognized the existence of an implied right of privacy. Most of the protections for individual rights and liberties afforded by the United States Constitution only apply to actions of local, state, or federal governments, or a branch or arm of a local, state, or federal government. Acts of such a government or governmental branch or agency are referred to as "state action." Generally speaking, in the absence of "state action," a cause of action cannot be maintained for deprivation of rights under the U.S. or state constitutions. Private employers are generally not arms of a local, state, or federal government and their employment practices do not generally constitute "state action." Consequently private employers generally are not required to afford employees' protections granted exclusively under the U.S. and state constitutions (however, at least one state, California, has ruled that private employers must comply with the state constitution's protection of privacy rights).

3) Example, Discussion Paper: Workplace Privacy Updated: August 3, 2004

http://www.epic.org/privacy/workplace/

Workplace Privacy
3.0) Introduction
Workers of the world are exposed to many types of privacy-invasive monitoring while earning a living. These include drug testing, closed-circuit video monitoring, Internet monitoring and filtering, E-mail monitoring, instant message monitoring, phone monitoring, location monitoring, personality and psychological testing, and keystroke logging. Employers do have an interest in monitoring in order to address security risks, sexual harassment, and to ensure the acceptable performance of employees. However, these activities may diminish employee morale and dignity, and increase worker stress.
(See safeguards, mutual cooperation and recommendations - Author)
In the United States and many third-world countries, workers have very few privacy protections in law. There are few situations where an employee has a due process right to access, inspect, or challenge information collected or held by the employer. There is a patchwork of state and federal laws that grant employees limited rights. For instance, under federal law, private-sector employees cannot be required to submit to a polygraph examination. However, there are no general protections of workplace privacy except where an employer acts tortuously--where the employer violates the employee's reasonable expectation of privacy.

3.1) US Approaches, Legislation, and Protections
In 1977, the Privacy Protection Study Commission (PPSC), which was convened pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, issued a report covering workplace privacy. The report recognized that employers collect a broad range of information on workers, and focused on delineating lines of fairness on the collection and use of employee information. It also recognized that much had changed since the development of common law employment norms. America is now longer a country of the self-employed, but rather of employees who do not always have the power to bargain the terms of employment. Quoting the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S., the PPSC's approach recognized that "people with a given employment status.must adhere to many terms of employment set by the organization they work in if they are to work at all."
The PPSC pursued three public policy objectives, and 34 recommendations to meet the objectives. The objections were first, to minimize intrusiveness in hiring, and specifically to reduce the practice of obtaining information about an employee from a third party, such as a credit reporting agency. Second, to maximize fairness, by reducing use of arrest information and ensuring that information collected is accurate, complete, and timely. Third, the PPSC pursued the goal of creating a legitimate and enforceable expectation of confidentiality in employment records.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) is the only federal statute that offers workers protections in communications privacy. ECPA prohibits the intentional interception of electronic communications. However, the ECPA contains loopholes that facilitate employee monitoring. First, employers are permitted to monitor networks for business purposes. This enables employers to listen in on employee phone calls or to view employees' e-mail. Employers may not monitor purely personal calls, however, in order to determine that a call is personal, employers usually have to listen to portions of the employee's conversation. Second, an employer may intercept communications where there is actual or implied employee consent. Consent has been found where there employer merely gives notice of the monitoring.
State legislation has had limited success. Connecticut does have a statute that requires employers give notice before engaging in electronic monitoring. Efforts to pass a notice-only statute in California by Senator Bowen narrowly failed in October 2001.

3.2) Specific Methods of Worker Surveillance
Remarkably invasive tools exist to monitor employees at the workplace. These include:

* Packet-sniffing software can intercept, analyze, and archive all communications on a network, including employee e-mail, chat sessions, file sharing, and Internet browsing. Employees who use the workplace network to access personal e-mail accounts not provided by the company are not protected. Their private accounts, as long as they are accessed on workplace network or phone lines, can be monitored.
* Keystroke loggers can be employed to capture every key pressed on a computer keyboard. These systems will even record information that is typed and then deleted.
* Phone monitoring is pervasive in the American workplace as well. Some companies employ systems that automatically monitor calls content and breaks between receiving calls.
* Video surveillance is also widely deployed in the American workplace. In a number of cases, video surveillance has been used in employee bathrooms, rest areas, and changing areas. Video surveillance, under federal law, is acceptable where the camera focuses on publicly-accessible areas. However, installment in areas where employees or customers have a legitimate expectation of privacy, such as inside bathroom stalls, can give the employee a cause of action under tort law.
* "Smart" ID cards can track an employee's location while she moves through the workplace. By using location tracking, an employer can even monitor whether employees spend enough time in front of the bathroom sink to wash their hands. New employee ID cards can even determine the direction the worker is facing at any given time. * Increasingly, employers are using psychometric or aptitude testing to evaluate potential employees. Such tests purport to assess intelligence, personality traits, religious belief, character, and skills.
3.3) Labor Issues - Computer Surveillance
In the United States, restricting employee communications may run afoul of fair labor laws where there is interference with union activities. In Pratt & Whitney, 26 AMR 36322, 12-CA-18446 (Feb. 23, 1998), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reported in an advice memorandum that a company's computer network was a "work area." Accordingly, rules prohibiting all nonbusiness use of e-mail on a company's network could be unlawful. The NLRB has found that policies discriminating against union activity on computer networks run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employee monitoring that has the effect of selectively punishing labor organizing activities could violate the NLRA.
3.4) Labor Issues - Video Surveillance & landmark rulings
Employers increasingly attempt to install hidden surveillance cameras. Recent cases have established a precedent that employers must provide notice to labor unions before installing surveillance cameras in the workplace and employers must provide the opportunity to negotiate and bargain over this action. In the most recent decision, however, the NLRB would not rescind the discipline of employees even if the employers illegally and secretly installed hidden cameras.
Note: The following appeals to the NLRB are all based on "hidden cameras" installed after existing overt and visible cameras existed and included surveillance of rest rooms, activity rooms and lunch rooms. (Author)
* Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (14-CA-25299; 342 NLRB No. 49) St. Louis, MO July 22, 2004. In 1999, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the installation of hidden cameras monitoring work areas requires notice and opportunity for bargaining. The ALJ found that the area in dispute could indeed be called a work area, thus broadening the definition of "work area." However, they did not revoke the discipline of the employees even though it was based on evidence obtained by the hidden cameras.  In 2004, the NLRB upheld both decisions. The NLRB ruled that the employers were still justified in the disciplinary action taken against employees due to the evidence obtained by the hidden cameras.  The board found that rescinding the discipline would violate the specific remedial restriction contained in Section 10(c) of the Act, which provides that "[n]o order of the Board shall require the reinstatement of any individual as an employee who has been suspended or discharged, or the payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was suspended or discharged for cause."
* Colgate-Palmolive, 323 NLRB No. 515 (1997) (PDF). The NLRB found that the employer had violated section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA in refusing to respond to the union's request to bargain on the issue.  They found it to be a mandatory subject of bargaining saying the installation of surveillance cameras is "outside of the scope of managerial decisions lying at the core of entrepreneurial control." 323 NLRB at 515.
Note: The above landmark cases deal with hidden cameras and also abuse by the
employers by monitoring strictly private places without consent. As noted
in the above documentation, employers do have the legal right to install surveillance cameras. The protocols listed in the "Conclusions" at the end
provide useful guidelines for an easy transition and acceptance. (Author)
4.0) American Management Association Survey (2001)
The American Management Association (AMA) surveys major employers annually to determine the extent of workplace surveillance in the United States. Since AMA started conducting the survey in 1997, prevalence of workplace monitoring has increased every year.

More Companies Watching Employees, American Management Association Press Release, April 18, 2001. http://www.amanet.org/press/amanews/ems2001.htm
2001 AMA Survey Workplace Monitoring & Surveillance: Policies and Practices Summary of Key Findings (PDF - summary)

2001 Survey Result: More Companies Watching Employees American Management
Association Annual Survey Reports
All Forms of Active Monitoring Rise to 78% from 74%, One-Fourth Have Fired Workers for Misuse of E-Mail or Internet

NEW YORK, April 18, 2001-Nearly 80 percent of major U.S companies keep tabs on employees by checking their e-mail, Internet, or telephone connections or by videotaping them at work, according to American Management Association's annual survey on workplace monitoring and surveillance. Active monitoring has skyrocketed in recent years, up from 35 percent in 1997.

Sixty-three percent now monitor workers' Internet connections, up from 54 percent a year ago, and 47 percent store and review employee e-mail, an increase from 38 percent in 2000, the survey found. Forty percent block Internet connections to unauthorized or inappropriate sites, up from 29 percent last year.

More than a quarter of surveyed companies (27%) say that they've fired employees for misuse of office e-mail or Internet connections, and nearly two-thirds (65%) report some disciplinary measure for those offenses.

"Privacy in today's workplace is largely illusory. In this era of open space cubicles, shared desk space, networked computers and teleworkers, it is hard to realistically hold onto a belief in private space," said Ellen Bayer, AMA's human resources practice leader. "Work is carried out on equipment belonging to employers who have a legal right to the work product of the employees using it."
Although the average percentage of workers with office e-mail and Internet connections remained relatively constant (65% and 52% respectively, compared with 64% and 48% the previous year), overall active monitoring grew to 78 percent from 74 percent. The overall figure includes such measures as storing and reviewing computer files (36%), video recording of employees on the job (15%), recording and reviewing telephone messages (12%), and storing and reviewing voice mail (8%).

Other forms of surveillance, including telephone numbers called and time spent on the phone (43%), logged computer time (19%) and video surveillance for security purposes (38%) brought the total for all forms of monitoring to 82 percent, up from last year's 78 percent and from 67 percent in 1999."It's not just a matter of corporate curiosity, but very real worries about productivity and liability that push these policies," said Eric Rolfe Greenberg, director of management studies for AMA. "Personal e-mail can clog a company's telecommunications system, and sexually explicit or other inappropriate material downloaded from the Internet can lead to claims of a hostile work environment."

In previous years the growth in monitoring went hand in hand with increases in the share of employees gaining access to e-mail and the Internet. This year, however, the average share of employees with office connections hardly grew at all, while monitoring those activities rose by nearly 10 percent.

"It's important to note, however, that by far the greater share of this monitoring is performed on a spot-check basis rather than an ongoing, 24-hour basis," Greenberg continued. "And, importantly, 90 percent of the companies engaging in any of these practices inform their employees that they're doing so."

The AMA survey of 1,627 organizations focused on large and mid-sized firms and does not represent an accurate sampling of U.S. businesses overall. The sample does reflect practices among its members and client firms, who together employ over one-fourth of the American workforce. The sample's margin of error is 2.5 percent. The AMA questionnaire was mailed in January 2001 and reports practices in place as of early 2001.
"The lines between one's personal and professional life can blur with expectations of 24/7 work week, but employees ought to engage in some discretion about personal activities carried out during the official hours of work," Bayer commented. "The obligations for respect are mutual. It is up to clear-thinking managers and realistic employees to leverage the good that monitoring can accomplish and work to assure those adequate safeguards are in place to avoid abuses."

American Management Association is the world's leading membership-based management development organization. It is distinguished by the quality of its faculty of global business practitioners, the practical action-oriented focus of its learning programs and the dynamic, interactive nature of its courses. AMA offers a full range of business education and management development programs for individuals and organizations in the Americas, Asia and Europe. More than 700,000 AMA customers and members a year, including 488 out of the Fortune 500 companies and many federal agencies, learn superior business skills and best management practices through a variety of seminars, conferences and executive forums, e-learning and self-study courses, books, research studies and onsite and customized learning solutions.

International Guidelines
* International Labour Organization (ILO) Code on Protection of Workers' Personal Data. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/support/publ/pdf/protect.pdf
US Legislation
* www.nlrb.gov ; www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/manuals/rules/act.asp
* Provides the framework for fair labor practices and labor organizing.
* National Labor Relations Board
* http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/wiretap/ecpa86.html
* Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Part 2 - Canada

1.0) Federal Law: Summary and intent
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act (PIPEDA)

Privacy in the Workplace

Employers and employees are often subject to privacy laws. The Privacy Act, for example, applies to employee information in federal government institutions. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act applies to employee information in federal works, undertakings, and businesses. See our fact sheet entitled Application of the PIPEDA to Employee Records. Several provinces have privacy legislation applying to employee information. In addition, employers often make a commitment in collective agreements to observe privacy practices. But whether or not privacy is protected by law or contract, respecting privacy in the workplace makes good business sense.

People expect to have some privacy at work, even if they are on their employer's premises and using the employer's equipment. At the same time, it's normal that working for someone will mean giving up some privacy. Employers need basic information about their employees for things like pay and benefits, and they have to be able to ensure that work is being done efficiently and safely.

But the possibilities for infringing on privacy are greater than ever before. Psychological tests, web-browsing records, video surveillance, keystroke monitoring, genetic testing: the information an employer can have about employees is limitless.

Employers can balance their "need to know" with their employees' right to privacy, if they ensure that they collect, use, and disclose personal information about their employees for appropriate purposes only.

Respecting employees' privacy

An employer's need for information should be balanced with an employee's right to privacy. For almost all personal information - including pay and benefit records, formal and informal personnel files, video or audio tapes, and records of web-browsing, electronic mail, and keystrokes - the following basic rules help to establish and maintain that balance:

* The employer should say what personal information it collects from employees, why it collects it, and what it does with it.
* Collection, use, or disclosure of personal information should normally be done only with an employee's knowledge and consent.
* The employer should only collect personal information that's necessary for its stated purpose, and collect it by fair and lawful means.
* The employer should normally use or disclose personal information only for the purposes that it collected it for, and keep it only as long as it's needed for those purposes, unless it has the employee's consent to do something else with it, or is legally required to use or disclose it for other purposes.
* Employees' personal information needs to be accurate, complete, and up-to-date.
* Employees should be able to access their personal information, and be able to challenge the accuracy and completeness of it.

Do employees' privacy rights conflict with an employer's right to manage?

Employers have legitimate requirements for personal information about their employees. They need to know who they're hiring. They need to address performance issues and ensure the physical security of their workplace. And they may see electronic monitoring and other surveillance as necessary to ensure productivity, stop leaks of confidential information, and prevent workplace harassment.

So sometimes employers have to delve into private matters. But they can keep those instances to a minimum, and limit the impact on personal privacy. The possibility that an individual employee might do something harmful doesn't justify treating all employees as suspects. The questionable benefit of knowing what every employee is doing on company time and equipment, at all times, and needs to be weighed against the cost- including the cost to staff morale and trust. Preventing workplace harassment is an important goal, but its best achieved through workforce training and sensitization, explicit anti-harassment policies, and appropriate remedial measures when harassment is reported or reasonably suspected, rather than by depriving everyone of their privacy rights.

Clear policies and clear expectations

At a minimum, employers should tell their employees what personal information will be collected, used, and disclosed. They should inform employees of their policies on Web, e-mail, and telephone use, for example. If employees are subject to random or continuous surveillance, they need to be told so. Employers should also ensure that information they collect for one purpose isn't used for an unrelated purpose without the employee's consent.

Even if they're not required to do so by law, employers should give employees access to the personal information held about them, so that they can verify, and if necessary challenge, its accuracy and completeness.

What about employees who waive their privacy rights?

Employers may be tempted to advise employees or prospective employees that they have no expectations of privacy in the workplace - that the loss of privacy is a condition of employment. Someone who agrees to work under these conditions, it could be argued, has consented to unlimited collection, use, and disclosure of their personal information.

Whether this is really consent - clear, informed, voluntary consent - is questionable. And the general principle of collecting only the personal information that's required for appropriate purposes gets lost with this approach. A better alternative is to specifically ask employees to consent to explicit, limited, and justified collections, uses, and disclosures of their personal information.

A "privacy culture"

In many workplaces, practices like the ones outlined above are required by law, and employees have legal means to assert their rights. Employees may also have enforceable rights to privacy under collective agreements.

But good privacy practice is not just about avoiding complaints, grievances, or lawsuits. Whether or not privacy is protected by law or contract, fostering a workplace culture where privacy is valued and respected contributes to morale and mutual trust, and makes good business sense


http://www.privcom.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_17_e.asp

2.0) Quebec Privacy Laws

Protection of personal information in the private sector, legal text:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/P_39_1/P39_1_A.html

CAI: "Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec" (Access to Information Act)
Home Page: http://www.cai.gouv.qc.ca/index-en.html

Note: The Quebec Law is intended to deal mostly with the exchange of private
information (social security etc.) and the legal precedents / appeals with
regard to surveillance concern once again "hidden cameras". (Author)

Quebec Government overview on the application to the private sector (abridged)

Every enterprise supplying goods or services must comply with the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector if it collects, holds, uses or communicates personal information. Generally speaking, enterprises must comply with certain rules to ensure that individuals maintain control over their own files
.
When collecting personal information, private sector enterprises must:

. have a serious and legitimate interest in constituting a file;
. state why a file is being constituted by stipulating its object;
. obtain the information from the person concerned, unless the person or the Act
authorizes the information to be collected from a third person;
. collect only the information required for the stipulated object;
. inform the person concerned of the object of the file, the use that will be made of
it, and the categories of people within the enterprise that will have access to it;
. tell the person concerned where the file will be kept, and ensure that the person understands his or her rights of access and correction.

When holding, using or communicating personal information, private sector enterprises must:

- introduce security measures to ensure that the information remains confidential;
- ensure that the information is accurate and up-to-date when using it to make a decision
about the person concerned;
- obtain the consent of the person concerned before using personal information:
- if the information is not relevant to the object of the file;
- to communicate personal information to another party; - ensure that the person's consent to use or communicate the information is manifest, freely given, enlightened and given for a specific purpose, and that it covers a limited
period.

Some Exceptions:

Exceptionally, an enterprise may communicate personal information from a file without obtaining the consent of the person concerned. For example, such information may be communicated:

. to a person responsible for the prevention, detection or repression of crime;
. to a public body that collects such information as part of its function;
* to a person who must act urgently to protect the life, health or safety of the person
concerned;
. to a person who, on certain conditions set out in the Act, uses or communicates a
nominative list for commercial or philanthropic prospecting purposes.

Note: The above text is given for due reference. (Author)3.0) Legal Review of PIPEDA
http://www.smu.ca/academic/sobey/workplacereview/sept2004/VideoSurveillance.pdf
Video Surveillance in the Workplace - Can Employees Spy on their Employees?
By Anne Uteck, Assistant professor at Dalhousie University, Law & Technology, Employment Law & Law and Policy Issues in
Electronic Commerce & Bruce Anderson, PH.D, Commercial Law at St Mary's University Summary of Review - Federal Law (PIPEDA)

Employers argue that surveillance of the workplace is required to deal with theft,
security, safety, property protection, productivity and liability issues. These concerns
have prompted more employers to take advantage of sophisticated forms of surveillance.

Question: To what extent can employers use video surveillance to monitor employees?

Unionized employees:

In collective bargaining, there is an important distinction between constant surveillance for all purposes and surveillance for specific reasons such as the elimination of fraud and theft.

* Personal information seems to include video surveillance tapes
* All employees must be fully informed on the security measures.
* How surveillance and monitoring activities are to be used is a must.
* As long as the surveillance is reasonable, the union must give its consent.
* Also, no consent is required if the aim is to investigate theft thus leaving open the window of hidden cameras, after a carefully rejecting all other options.
".the collection is reasonable for purposes related to a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province."

"Can employers spy on there employees?" "Yes, so long as it is reasonable."

Non unionized employees: Very few restrictions.
br>
_____________________

Conclusion

Policy, Protocol & Implementation of Video Surveillance

United States and Canada

It is clear that both countries rely heavily on common sense and mutual cooperation with employees. Although there are certain rules when dealing with unionized employees, they do not prevent an employer from installing surveillance cameras. The one item that an employer cannot do is record the audio recordings of conversations between employees. We are therefore left with video surveillance and electronic monitoring of computer use, the two most common forms of surveillance widely used throughout all industries in North America, both in the office and in the plant or manufacturing facility.

It must be emphasized that the existing rules or laws in the United States, Canada including the Province of Quebec applies to arms or agencies of the government, namely the State and not private enterprise. Also, the vast majority of laws deal with protecting the privacy of individuals such as social security numbers etc. and exchanging such information with third parties and the consent of individuals in such matters.

Please note that this report includes monitoring of computer usage on company property and equipment because it is now a widespread practice by employees to misuse their time and contractual agreements thus employers need to protect themselves.

Let us concentrate on the use of surveillance cameras in plants and offices. Regrettably, the era of honest and loyal employees has been shredded by too many thefts, vandalisms and other illegal activities conducted by employees because of financial needs, mentality and a lack of respect, to name but a few. The concept of an employer protecting himself does not mean that the majority of employees are dishonest; it only takes a few employees here and there to poison a work environment. There should be no feeling of guilt in protecting your property that is now commonplace as long as fair and decent written rules are established. There is also the upside in that it enhances safety and security in the workplace and reduces harassment and intimidation thus legal liabilities by the employer.

Hidden surveillance cameras are used by a fair number of companies; however this practice is not good for employee morale and legal interpretation by the courts can go either way. The use of surveillance cameras by Armstrong-Hunt would certainly be straightforward and out in the open.

Before proceeding to Policy or Protocol, the following quote is a good motto:

"The obligations for respect are mutual. It is up to clear-thinking managers and realistic employees to leverage the good that monitoring can accomplish and work to assure those adequate safeguards are in place to avoid abuses."

Policy - Protocol - Implementation

Before a contractor installs the surveillance cameras, clear written rules as for the reasons they will be used and the limits and protections guaranteed to employees should be posted on the employee bulletin board. All staff members should be informed and one person should be named to handle all employee questions and held responsible for the handling, storage and use of the Digital Video Recorder.

The rules should include or be similar to, but not limited to the following:

* Video Surveillance will be used primarily for protection against property and/or equipment theft and vandalism.
* Since alarms are "after the act", outside perpetrators will be identified.

* There will be no hidden cameras installed.
* Monitoring will not be used for productivity purposes or evaluations.
* Non work areas such as lunchrooms and washrooms will not be monitored.
* Cameras will not be used to "time" employee shift changes.
* There will be no audio recordings of conversations.
* When union meetings are held, cameras will be shut off in that area.
* Incidents regarding employee rights against intimidation and harassment will be recorded and used to improve employee relations in a fair and negotiated fashion.
* Recordings may be used to improve safety in the workplace.
* Because of government demands on shipping integrity against terrorism, exports have to be closely monitored throughout the production line and loading.
* Grievances will be handled through the existing collective agreement.

By being comprehensive at the onset, this will eliminate concerns or apprehensions.

After employees are well informed, the company may proceed to install the surveillance cameras. The interval may be short; say, on a Friday notice, work may then begin during the weekend.

".the collection is reasonable for purposes related to a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province."

Honest and loyal employees will have nothing to be concerned about. Since gas stations, grocery and convenience stores and industrial facilities all use surveillance cameras, in all likelihood employees will be aware of common prevalent practices.

Andre de Blois, Eng,
Econo-Security Inc
info@econo-security.com Tel: 819-780-0088