Saturday, March 15, 2025

In-Vehicle Surveillance Cameras

In a recent policy grievance ruling in BC, the arbitrator ruled that the employer’s use of in-vehicle cameras violated employees’ privacy rights.

Newsletters Ontario Construction

Here are four key takeaways from the ruling.

1. There is a high privacy expectation for employees during travel time.

The arbitrator emphasized that the employees’ privacy interests were significant, noting that the time spent in the employer-owned four-wheel drive pickup vehicles, known as crummies, resembled off-duty time akin to being in a lounge or lunchroom. This meant that surveillance during this time intruded on highly personal conversations and activities, and the employer failed to justify such an intrusion as reasonable.

2. The employer lacked a compelling safety justification for using the cameras.

While the employer cited road safety as a rationale, the arbitrator found the connection between the rear-facing camera surveillance and safety to be speculative and tenuous. The limited history of safety issues (six reports over five years, most related to vehicle damage) did not warrant such invasive monitoring. The arbitrator concluded that the true purpose of the surveillance was employee monitoring and potential discipline, which lacked a legitimate nexus to safety.

3. The employer failed to provide notice or obtain consent.

The employer violated the requirements under BC’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by not giving employees prior notification of the surveillance and not obtaining their consent. Visible cameras alone did not constitute meaningful notice, and the employer’s delay in drafting a formal surveillance policy further compounded this issue.

4. The policy and system implementation were unreasonable.

The arbitrator identified several flaws in the employer’s surveillance system and policy.

Vagueness – Terms like conduct, infraction, and incident were undefined, making the policy overly broad and open to abuse.
Data retention and access – The retention of footage and indefinite storage of retrieved data were excessive. The lack of inquiry into how Samsara handled data or ensured security was also deemed unreasonable.

Source: United Steelworkers, Local 1-1937 v. Rehn Enterprises Ltd.

In-Vehicle Surveillance Cameras

You might be interested in