Use of video surveillance is, of course, highly privacy intrusive and allowed only in limited circumstances:
- PURPOSE: There must be a compelling purpose for use. Security and safety are generally OK; but use of video for productivity purposes, e.g., to ensure employees are really working, is almost never permissible
- NECESSITY: Use of video surveillance to accomplish the compelling purpose is generally OK when there are no less privacy-intrusive methods available.
- BALANCE: The benefits of using video surveillance must outweigh the intrusion on employees’ privacy.
- MINIMUM AMOUNT NECESSARY: The personal information that video surveillance captures must be limited to the minimum amount necessary to achieve the purpose. Cameras should be installed only in places where the problem justifying surveillance is present.
- OVERT or COVERT? The privacy limitations are even more intense when employees don’t know they’re being filmed–which doesn’t sound like the case in your situation. . .
- SECURITY: Tapes should be shared only with those who need to see them and protected with safeguards, including destruction when they’re no longer needed.
Also need to ensure surveillance adheres to the terms of applicable collective agreements and your own HR policies.
To the extent surveillance use satisfies the above criteria, use of the tapes for discipline is probably OK. Example: Can discipline employees caught on tape doing something violent or dangerous but not for slacking off. . .
Here are the Ontario Privacy Commission Guidelines if you want more info. https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Resources/2015_Guidelines_Surveillance.pdf
Hope that helps. Glenn
