Canadian Labour Reporter

May 21, 2018

Canadian Labour Reporter is the trusted source of information for labour relations professionals. Published weekly, it features news, details on collective agreements and arbitration summaries to help you stay on top of the changing landscape.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 7 of 7

8 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2018 May 21, 2018 ARBITRATION AWARDS "Surveillance cameras have been installed in the workplace." At the time, the union, United Steelworkers (USW), Local 9355, believed only eight cameras were installed in the 17,000-square- foot facility. But the employer testified that 18 cameras were in- stalled in 2000. They were originally intended to monitor entrances only, but by 2016, the union discovered that 32 cameras were installed and some of them were pointed at the shop floor and at some employees. On July 7, the USW filed a grievance alleging a violation of privacy. "The union has a grievance un- der the CBA because the company has video surveillance cameras in such a position that they may be used for the monitoring and recording of employees while at work," said the filing. Brian Klaponski, president and CEO of Carte International, testi- fied that due to the nature of the business (the company manufac- tured electrical transformers) the shop floor was dangerous due to cranes constantly moving around and high-voltage electricity that was used to test the equipment. The cameras were installed to help alleviate the danger and to help prevent theft and other workplace worries, said Klapon- ski. "There are safety concerns ev- erywhere." The cameras had been em- ployed on multiple occasions to clarify certain things, according to Klaponski. For example, one time an employee stole some cop- per and the surveillance proved the identity of the thief. Another time, cash that was intended for an ailing employee was stolen and, again, the video evidence was used to identify the culprit, he said. As well, the company wanted to monitor against employee vandal- ism, after the 2000 strike. The union didn't voice any complaints about the cameras un- til the 2016 case, said Klaponski, which showed it tacitly approved of the implementation. Jeff Ziegler, welder, testified that in spring of 2016, he noticed one camera was pointed directly at his regular work station and it made him feel uncomfortable. He took his concerns to manage- ment, but received no assurances that the camera would be re- moved. Arbitrator Arne Peltz dis- missed the grievance but ordered that "in future, the union re- ceive notice of any contemplated changes to non-surreptitious sur- veillance which may impact on the privacy interest of employees." "Leaving aside historical factors from 2000 after the strike, the cur- rent objectives are protection of valuable assets (materials, equip- ment and product), employee safety and product integrity," said Peltz. "I have found that the cam- eras as used are reasonably effec- tive in meeting the stated objec- tives." The union was also concerned that there could be immediate monitoring of employee actions, but the employer denied this was the case. "According to the evidence, there is no real-time monitoring of video images. The system captures and stores video from 31 cameras in the plant (and one camera in the reception area) and retains the data for about 50 days, after which the images are overwritten by subsequent re- cordings. There is a protocol for viewing a segment of video sur- veillance," said Peltz. And most of the USW's con- cerns were dismissed by the arbi- trator. "The union's main argument regarding safety was that train- ing and education should be used instead of surveillance. These are necessary measures but, as I have found, they do not displace the usefulness of cameras in this particular case. Regarding asset protection and product integrity, the union did not put forward an alternative that the company could have used. The union's main submission was that the original batch of cameras should be re- stored, aimed at entrances and exits, or the current array should only be used when worker pres- ence in the plant was minimal, such as on night shift. I do not agree that these are reasonable al- ternatives," said Peltz. Reference: Carte International and United Steelworkers, Local 9355. Arne Peltz — arbitrator. Milt Christiansen, Devin Wehrle for the employer. Phil Hayden for the employee. April 16, 2018. 2018 CarswellMan 145 time) processor position will be paid $1 premium for hours worked in the position." O'Neill said when the 2015 ne- gotiations happened, he would have asked for the butter maker position to be included under the batch and HTST positions, if he was he involved in the talks. On March 28, 2017, O'Neill filed the grievance, with the union, the Teamsters, Transport and Allied Workers Union, Local 855. As well, the grievance asked for an additional $1-per-hour pre- mium as working foreman. O'Neill testified he asked about the premium in January 2017, when Agropur began to make but- ter at the plant. But the employer responded that the $1-per-hour premium was only intended to be paid to those workers involved in the pasteurization process. A company manual refers to a "batch of butter" but it didn't use the verb "batch" in any way, said O'Neill. David Pearce, former presi- dent and business manager for Teamsters, testified that during the 2015 negotiations, the em- ployer was concerned about los- ing batch and HTST workers, who felt they weren't being adequately compensated for pasteurization, which was crucial to plant opera- tions because of food-safety con- cerns. The employer added the premi- um pay to keep the workers from transferring out of their current positions, he said. If Agropur clarified that pas- teurization was the key consider- ation in the original 2015 talks, the union wouldn't have brought for- ward the grievance, said Pearce. Andrea Dillon, quality control supervisor, testified batch and HTST processors go through a minimum of three months of training, followed by on-the-job shadowing due to the impor- tance of their work and O'Neill was not trained in critical control point (CCP) work, which was defined as, "Any action and activ- ity that can be used to prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level," according to the company's CCP training manual. Making butter involved cream or milk that was already pasteur- ized, said Dillon. Arbitrator James Oakley dis- missed the grievance. "(O'Neill's) position of butter maker is one of the machine-operator positions. Butter making occurs in a room separated by partition from the batching room. (O'Neill) referred to his room as the butter-batching room. However, the photographs indicate that the label on the room is 'butter room'" There are separate categories of workers, according to Oakley. "The evidence establishes that there is a specific position of batch processor which is the machine- operator position doing batch pasteurization. (O'Neill's) work as a butter maker is not batch pas- teurization. The butter maker and the batch processor are two sepa- rate and distinct positions within the machine-operator classifica- tion." The second premium request- ed was also denied. "There is no reference in the wage schedule to paying any amount to the working foreman over and above any pre- mium paid to the classifications supervised," said Oakley. "(O'Neill) is entitled to the rate for working foreman in schedule A, which is $1 above the rate paid to the machine-operator classifi- cation." Reference: Agropur Dairy Cooperative and Teamsters, Transport and Allied Workers Union, Local 855. James Oakley — arbitrator. Jack Graham for the employer. Stuart Morris for the employee. Jan. 29, 2018. 2018 CarswellNfld 164 No 'real-time monitoring' of plant employees: Arbitrator < Butter maker pg. 1 < Surveillance cameras pg. 1

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Labour Reporter - May 21, 2018