Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Pages 29-34

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 29...
... 29 of Ordinances prohibits public security cameras from recording audio.392 The state of Washington's statute may be the most stringent in requiring the consent of all parties. Unless otherwise permitted, it is unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a)
From page 30...
... 30 material fact whether their Fourth Amendment rights were violated."413 The court ruled also, There were no genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Plaintiffs' California Constitutional right to privacy was violated by Defendants Schneider and Thompson.… Further, under California Government Code § 815.2(a) , which holds a City liable for the injuries caused by its employees acting in the scope of their employment, Defendant City is liable for Defendant Schneider's violation of the California Constitution.414 In Laba v.
From page 31...
... 31 The court also stated that "the extent of possible privacy concerns is not necessarily dispositive in determining whether an employer must bargain over the installation and use of a particular camera."431 However, as seen in Colgate, supra, collective bargaining on mandatory subjects does not require that the employer and the workers come to an agreement -- the parties must only bargain until they reach an agreement or an "impasse." An impasse occurs when it is clear that no further progress is expected on an issue. With permissive subjects of bargaining there is no requirement to even reach an impasse.432 As for the discipline that Anheuser–Busch imposed on some employees, the court held that the NLRB had treated "like situations" in other cases differently and, therefore, remanded the case so that the Board could apply, adequately distinguish, or overrule the Board's prior precedents.433 C
From page 32...
... 32 A Rhode Island statute provides that an employer may not "cause an audio or video recording to be made of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for employees to change their clothes, unless authorized by court order."446 The statute further states that any recording made in violation of the statute may not be "used by an employer for any purpose."447 A second category of statutes protects employees from video surveillance of their "intensely private" activities.448 As noted, Connecticut prohibits the use of electronic surveillance in areas used by employees for personal comfort and health and in areas they use to protect their possessions.449 In New York, an employer may not make "a video recording…of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for employees to change their clothes, unless authorized by court order."450 A video recording made in violation of the statute may not be used by an employer "for any purpose."451 An employer violating the statute may be held liable to an employee for damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs, as well as be enjoined.452 West Virginia prohibits a public or private employer, including the employer's agent or representative, from operating an electronic surveillance device or system, such as a closed-circuit television system or a video-recording device, "in areas designed for the health or personal comfort of the employees or for safeguarding of their possessions, such as rest rooms, shower rooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and employee lounges."453 A third category of statutes requires that employers give notice to employees of the presence of video surveillance.454 Connecticut requires an employer to post a conspicuous notice advising of the employer's use of electronic monitoring. The term electronic monitoring is defined to be "‘the collection of information on an employer's premises concerning employees' activities or communications by any means other than direct observation,'" such as the use of a camera.455 In Trujillo v.
From page 33...
... 33 and/or record operators of transit vehicles and/or other equipment.464 On February 13, 2014, the California Office of the Attorney General responded to a state legislator's question on whether the use of continuous video surveillance of truck drivers during on-the-job driving would be a misdemeanor under California Labor Code § 1051 when the video is inspected by a third party for the purpose of disciplining truck drivers. In the Attorney General's opinion, the use of continuous video surveillance of truck drivers during on-the-job driving is not a misdemeanor under Labor Code § 1051 provided that the third party is an agent of the driver's employer, the agent is videotaping and inspecting the file for the sole benefit of the driver's employer, and the file is furnished only to the driver's employer.465 An Oregon case holds that employers may violate state labor laws if they unilaterally implement a policy of recording transit vehicle operators.
From page 34...
... 34 should face an operator to provide evidence of assaults.476 The report recommended that a transit agency address privacy questions, including why data are being collected, what data will be collected, when data will be collected, how privacy and confidentiality concerns will be addressed, and how data will be managed, analyzed, and stored.477 However, because of issues of employee morale and distraction, the monitoring of transit employees should be negotiated with employees or their unions.478 G Transit Agencies' Policies on Employees' Activation or Deactivation of Surveillance Equipment In response to the survey, twelve transit agencies (16.67%)

Key Terms

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.