Le 1er salon de l - Association des Surintendants de Golf du Québec

Who Can Validly Use a Camera to Spyon Employees and When And what’sthe situation at my golf club?Imagine the alarm of a daughter or son who suspects their father or mother is being mistreated or abused by attendantsat the nursing home where their parent resides. In 2009, 14.9% of Quebecers were age 65 or older 1 . At a time when asignificant portion of the Quebec population is elderly and therefore more vulnerable, what authority do employers haveto monitor the safety of residents under their care without infringing on the privacy of their employees? What are thelimits on employees’ right to privacy in the workplace?By M e Pierre GauthierCAIN LAMARRE CASGRAIN WELLSS.E.N.C.R.L. / Lawyersdespite the labor organization’s objections. The Superior Court foundthat the daughter of Léandre Contant had reasonable grounds to usea camera and applied the same test as for an employer to rule on thelegality of the evidence.The Superior Court therefore found that the attendant’s right to privacyhad not been violated, as she cannot expect her privacy to be protectedwhen she is in a client’s room. The camera was set up in the workplace,not a location reserved for the private activities of the attendant or hercoworkers. The attendant was carrying out her work as usual in Mr.Contant’s room, in the normal course of activities. She could not expecther right to privacy to be respected in this situation.The Superior Court examined this issue in 2010 with respect to the admissibilityof evidence in a grievance contesting a dismissal 2 : LéandreContant, who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, lives in a residential andlong term care center (CHSLD). His daughter, Chantal, noticed bruiseson his arms and hands and decided to hide a camera in her father’sroom. The recording showed that an attendant assigned to her father’sunit dragged her father by the arm to his room after her father fell onthe floor.Note that this judgment was rendered in special circumstances giventhat a third party, not the employer, acted completely independently byinstalling a video camera in the workplace. The same principles couldapply in other settings such as hospitals, senior citizens homes, anddaycare centers.1Institut national de santé publique, Statistiques, Répartition de la population selon l’âge Québec1971 à 2009, page consulted on January 12, 2011, [http://www.inspq.qc.ca/Santescope/element.asp?NoEle=1].2Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs du CSSS du Sud de Lanaudière (CSN) c. Lalande, 2010 QCCS1239 (CanLII).Until recently our courts had ruled that employers could use a camerato monitor employee behavior only if this extraordinary means was necessaryto ensure proper operation of their business. Employers cannotfilm their employees without running the risk of infringing on their privacy.They must have reasonable grounds to use this type of means.In this case the daughter of a client, not the employer, had installed acamera. The employer subsequently used the recording to dismiss theattendant at fault, and the arbitrator admitted this recording as evidencePrintemps 2011 17