Workplace Security Cameras Pit Safety Against Privacy
by Mike Martin
Since the
events of Sept. 11, workplace security has become a timely and sensitive issue. Many Canadian employers have instituted new screening and security procedures to protect both property and employees. Governments and businesses have hired additional personnel and instituted new procedures for both employees and the public who enter their facilities.
Even with all of these heightened concerns, there is still a reaction from many employees to security or surveillance cameras within the workplace.
Just the idea of being watched by an “eye in the sky” seems to draw a reaction from some people. The increased use of these devices in communities and in public areas even drew the interest of former Federal Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski, who launched a lawsuit against the RCMP, calling the operation of five cameras in Kelowna, B.C. an unnecessary infringement of civil rights.
In his last annual report, Radwanski wrote that he considered “this sort of video surveillance of public places to be an extremely serious violation of privacy rights even in the absence of recording. It is the very presence of video cameras, whether they are recording at any moment or not, that creates the privacy-destroying sense of being observed."
At the workplace, people want to feel safe, but they also want to feel trusted—by their co-workers and by their employer. So when a company in Nova Scotia decided to introduce surveillance cameras to the workplace—not to spy on its employees, but to prevent vandalism—it got a blast from the union and a wildcat strike by its workers, who said they didn’t want to “be spied on.”
Trenton Works Ltd. is a massive rail car plant that encompasses most of the town of Trenton, N.S. According to company Communications Manager Sandy Stephenson, the company was experiencing thousands of dollars of vandalism in one of its shops so it decided to place two hidden cameras in the ceiling of this one facility, known as C shop. The two cameras were placed in the specific area where the damage had been taking place. “One day a maintenance worker was inspecting the ceiling and discovered the cameras,” says Stephenson. That’s when the workers’ union, the United Steelworkers of America, got involved.
Don Murphy, President of Local 1231 of the Steelworkers, recalled that one of his members, an electrician, found the cameras and reported them to the union. “I went to the human resource section and then to the management of the plant, and had it confirmed that there were two security cameras that had been installed in the C shop for the purpose of catching those who were committing vandalism in that section. I was also told that the matter would be taken care of.”
Neither the union nor the members were satisfied with that response, so on the following work morning, the members walked off the job with a demand that the security cameras be removed immediately. The company agreed to do it.
Murphy believes that “the strength of the members standing together on what they believed was an issue of human rights and dignity in the workplace” was the reason for the quick turnaround by management. From management’s perspective, Stephenson feels that “the matter was blown out of proportion” and when the company saw how upset people were, it moved quickly to diffuse the situation.
One of the results to come out of this situation was an increased awareness by all employees of the need to be vigilant against vandalism of company property. Both sides signed a letter of understanding that states that both the union and company will not tolerate vandalism on the property. And since the security camera issue has been resolved, there may been no new instances of vandalism in that area of the plant.
But would each side do it all over again? The union’s Murphy says that unions and workers “can’t tolerate security cameras being installed without your knowledge and being spied upon in the workplace.” Trenton Works’ Stephenson says the company “would take whatever steps were necessary to stop or prevent vandalism, but we might use another avenue to resolve the situation. And we would certainly advise the union in advance of installing security cameras in the future.”
Mike Martin is an Ottawa writer and consultant with more than 25 years’ experience in labour relations.
|
Thursday, August 28, 2008
