By Derek Knoechel

Canadian arbitrators have been dealing with the issue of how to deal with video surveillance of employees for over two decades. Early decisions dealt with off-site surveillance of employees suspected of faking or exaggerating illnesses. But countless battles have since been waged over the use of video surveillance cameras in and around the workplace. When can such equipment be used in the workplace? When can the resulting evidence be relied upon?

Video cameras in the workplace
There have been numerous skirmishes over the use of security cameras covering entrances and exits to the worksite and other nonworking areas. The use of hidden cameras at the worksite as part of an investigation also has been the subject of much controversy. By far the most fever-pitched battles have been over the surveillance of production work, monitoring employees for disciplinary reasons, or conducting surveillance of social or sensitive areas of the workplace.

In each instance, the employer’s property rights and right to manage the workplace has been weighed against employees’ privacy interests. Those privacy interests find some support in privacy legislation and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where applicable. There has been considerable debate, particularly in Ontario, regarding whether there exists a freestanding legal right of privacy in unionized workplaces. Despite this debate, in English Canada a general consensus has begun to emerge among arbitrators that more intrusive methods of employee monitoring such as video surveillance will be permitted only if it’s justified and reasonable in the circumstances.

read more…

By Katie Clayton and Farrah Sunderani

With the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games having just begun, there will be several implications on the workplace. Past Olympic cities have reported high levels of absenteeism – both approved and unapproved – for employees wishing to attend the events, partake in the activities, or volunteer.

Employers outside Vancouver may face similar challenges – where employees call in “sick” in order to tune in to their favorite event. And then there are the transit disruptions in Vancouver itself. How will employers manage them while meeting client expectations and maintaining productivity? All of this while at the same time supporting the Olympic Spirit!

read more…

By Ralph Nero and Ida Martin

As we reported last week, decision makers across Canada are struggling with the meaning of discrimination on the basis of family status. Last week we looked at a Human Rights Tribunal decision out of British Columbia. This week we look at a recent Ontario arbitration decision, Re Power Stream Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636 (Bender et al.). Like the British Columbia case, the arbitrator ruled that not all conflicts between family and work lead to a duty to accommodate on the part of the employer.

Facts
The employer in the Ontario case is an electricity distribution company. Under a previous collective agreement, employees had the option of working five eight-hour shifts per week or four 10-hour shifts per week. The 10-hour shift commenced one hour earlier and ended one hour later than the eight-hour shift. While most employees chose the 10-hour shifts, the four grievors chose the eight-hour shifts. That schedule allowed them to more easily fulfill their family responsibilities: read more…

By Dominique Launay

Your employee is a single parent. He has to drop his children off at school each morning. They can’t be dropped off earlier than 9 a.m. He has to be back at the school by 5 p.m. to pick them up from their after-school care. He has no family to assist him. Is he covered by the family-status protections in some provinces’ human rights legislation? Do you have to accommodate him?

Increasingly, tribunals are being required to examine this issue: What is an employer’s accommodation obligation where an employee’s needs relating to his family status conflict with employment requirements?

read more…