Cameras in Bunkrooms?

[Riblett]

At my squad our bedroom at our secondary station has three beds, but there is usually only two people on the crew unless we have a student. Managment is suspicious that certain individuals have been having sex while duty at night. There have been some rumors flying around lately about there being cameras in the bunkrooms to try and catch this.

I have nothing to worry about as far as any inappropriate behavior is concerned, but my concern is that I have changed clothes in there, even my underwear, on many occasions. The idea of someone having video of me undressed makes me very uncomfortable. Wouldn't they be legally required to notify employees if they are being filmed in an area that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, like in a bedroom or bathroom? It is very common place for members to change uniforms in the bedroom because we only have one bathroom.

[Michael]

Years ago a Village Voice cover-story reported that women coal-miners had won a large settlement against their bosses who had drilled peepholes in the wall of their changing room. It may be worth digging that up, and until you find it, hanging this article on the wall, under the title Little Brother is Watching Back!

[brentoli]

Court Upholds Hidden Camera Workplace Surveillance . The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held (pdf) that a public college employee who was videotaped changing clothes in a cubicle during non-working hours had no expectation of privacy in that workspace. In a "friend of the court" brief filed in Nelson v. Salem State College last year, EPIC argued that society is prepared to recognize an expectation of privacy in the workplace as reasonable. For more information, see EPIC's Workplace Privacy Page. (Apr. 4, 2006)

EPIC

[hr:22d13fd3b8]

Employers can monitor employees' work areas by ensuring the employees do not have an "expectation of privacy." The way to do this is by giving notice of the monitoring. Notice may take away the element of surprise, but it also deters the conduct sought to be monitored.

California

[hr:22d13fd3b8]

The appellants' privacy claim thus hinges upon a right to privacy which has its origin in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty. Such privacy rights do exist, see Roe, 410 U.S. at 152, but they have been limited to fundamental rights that are implicit in the concept of an ordered liberty. See Paul, 424 U.S. at 713. On the facts of this case, the right to be free from disclosed video surveillance while at work in an open, generally accessible area does not constitute a fundamental right.

Vega-Rodriguez v. P.R. Tel. Co.

[hr:22d13fd3b8]

However, a secret videotape of a private act may be excluded from evidence in an employee disciplinary grievance. See AFSCME District Council 88 v. County of Lehigh, 798 A.2d 804 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (upholding arbitrator’s award reinstating corrections officer who was terminated for fraternizing with inmate; arbitrator had refused to admit videotape showing employee and former inmate in sexual encounter in private room). See 18 Pa. C.S. § 7507.1 (prohibiting viewing, photographing, or filming individual in state of nudity where person has reasonable expectation of privacy).

TENTH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW INSTITUTE

[hr:22d13fd3b8]

The Federal Wiretapping Act has much less an impact on video surveillance of

employees. Indeed, the Act does not apply to video-only surveillance because the act of making a silent video does not constitute an interception of an oral, wire, or electronic “communication”. See U.S. v. Koyomejian, 970 F.2d 536, 537 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1005 (1992)(silent video surveillance is neither prohibited nor regulated by the Act); Thompson v. Johnson CountyCommunity College, 930 F. Supp. 501 (D. Kan. 1996), aff’d, 108 F.3d 1388 (10th Cir. 1997)(no violation of act in installing video-only surveillance camera in locker room because it is interception of oral communication that subjects interceptor to liability, and act does not prohibit silent video surveillance).

PRIVACY LIMITATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

[hr:22d13fd3b8]

office); Brazinki v. Amoco Petroleum

Additives Co., 6 F.3d 1176 (7th Cir. 1993)(no claim for invasion of privacy for video in women’s locker room pointed so it would only film women entering and leaving restroom where employer installed video for legitimate reason); Liberti v. Walt Disney World Co., 912 F. Supp. 1494 (M.D. Fla. 1995)(finding claim for invasion of privacy where employer did not notify female employees of co-employee video taping women through peep hole in women’s change room after employer knew of conduct but waited to catch employee in the act).

PRIVACY LIMITATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

[Michael]

It may be worth digging that up, and until you find it, hanging this article

...unless, of course, brentoli is anywhere near your neighborhood.

Nice work, Chief!

[brentoli]

Haha! Sorry, the old speech and debate research days come back to me.

Is there a supplied, private place where you can change? Is the employer telling you about the monitoring? Are they recording audio?

[itku2er]

That is a big invasion of privacy.....

[Ridryder 911]

Here is an idea, instead of purchasing camera's and potential litigation, how about separating crews that are suspected, or actually supervising them. If they are caught, automatic dismissal! Period!

Common sense...

R/r 911

[courageheartx]

LOL@this thread.

I mean come on if mating season was on,wouldn't you hear the calls of the wild by listening? Cameras are an invasion of people's privacy...but at such a place where females and males work,i would think there would be cameras everywhere except the washrooms. no?hmmmm

[spenac]

Just do a little dance.

That will get them talking and maybe showing video, then they're busted for invading an area that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Make it good so it makes UTUBE(misspelled on purpose).

[brentoli]

That is a big invasion of privacy.....

Reading some of the case law, if the employers can prove that there is a private area for employees to dress in, there is no audio recording, and employees have somehow been notified of it (even a line in an employee handbook that reads "Employees could be subject to video monitoring on the premise"), then they could be upheld by the courts.