In a recent determination,ane the Tribunal administratif du travail (the "Tribunal") concluded that an employer's excessive surveillance by means of security cameras was a violation of its employees' right to nobility and integrity, and accordingly allowed their psychological harassment complaints.

THE FACTS

Two employees of a retail shop alleged that their employer had carried out excessive video surveillance resulting in inappropriate employer interventions. They filed a complaint of psychological harassment under department 123.6 of the Labour Standards Deed (the "Act").ii

Initially, the employer installed surveillance cameras to prevent shoplifting. The employer could activate the cameras remotely or view recordings at random. The complainants alleged that the employer used the cameras excessively, for purposes including:

  • To call in to observe out where a detail employee was - when the employee was in the camera's bullheaded spot;
  • To limited dissatisfaction with the productivity of employees when they spent besides much time at the counter rather than scattered throughout the shop;
  • To inquire to search certain employees' handbags when they took long breaks; and
  • To reprimand employees who used their cell phones.

The employees further alleged that the employer spoke abruptly, disrespectfully and unprofessionally during the interventions described above. The surveillance therefore created a hostile atmosphere between the employer and the employee; leaving them stressed, spied on and always on alert.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

The Human activity provides: "Every employee has a right to a work environs costless from psychological harassment."3 The complainants have the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that they were subjected to psychological harassment. In return, the employer must show that it met its obligations to "take reasonable activeness to prevent psychological harassment and, whenever they go enlightened of such behaviour, to put a stop to information technology."iv

First, the Tribunal establish that the video surveillance was excessive and unreasonable. The employ of the cameras went beyond the initial objective, which was justified in principle, and became a tool for regular and systematic monitoring of employees. While at that place was a real effect with employees' compliance with the employer's cell phone policy, the surveillance carried out violated the employees' right to privacy. Information technology was found that the use of surveillance cameras was disproportionate since the actions taken as a consequence often exceeded surveillance of compliance with the cell phone policy or prevention of shoplifting. This was vexatious conduct on the part of the employer.

2d, the Tribunal adamant that the excessive surveillance was a form of psychological harassment. The employees were aware that they were constantly being filmed while they were working. They were constantly fearful of doing something wrong or being absent for besides long. In other words, this surveillance was a violation of the dignity and integrity of the employees, who suffered anxiety, humiliation and felt devalued. The event was a harmful work environment.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that the employer had failed to encounter its legal obligations past engaging in surveillance that constituted psychological harassment, in the circumstances. Although the staff's dissatisfaction had been brought to the employer's attention, the employer had taken no action to remedy the situation and the video surveillance remained unchanged. Information technology had therefore failed to meet its obligations under department 81.xix of the Act and the complaints of psychological harassment were upheld.

The Tribunal also upheld a complaint of dismissal without just and sufficient cause, concluding that the dismissal of one of the complainants resulted from the video surveillance.

TAKEAWAY POINTS

Retail businesses unremarkably equip their stores with video surveillance systems to monitor and foreclose shoplifting. Although the example law generally approves the employ of this type of mensurate, the decision that is the subject field of this message is a reminder that the utilize of such tool must be circumscribed and must respect employees' integrity and dignity. Excessive and unreasonable surveillance to monitor employees, and the resulting inappropriate actions, tin create a harmful work environment and ultimately, in sure circumstances, constitute a violation of the applicable legislation regarding harassment in the workplace.

This determination is also a reminder to employers of their statutory obligations to prevent and respond to psychological harassment. When a written report is fabricated, an employer must therefore make serious efforts to assess the merits of a complaint and, if applicable, take reasonable measures to put an terminate to the situation complained of, when the practice is, in fact, reverse to the governing statutory requirements.

Footnotes

i Lazzer v. Magasin Baseball Town inc., 2022 QCTAT 478.

2 CQLR, c. N-1.1

iii Supra, note ii, south. 81.19.

4 Ibid.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought well-nigh your specific circumstances.