Opinion ID: 2996239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Use of Hidden Surveillance Cameras

Text: An employer commits an unfair labor practice when it “refuse[s] to bargain collectively with the representatives of [its] employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5); Mary Thompson Hosp. v. NLRB, 943 F.2d 741, 745 (7th Cir. 1991). Collective bargaining requires that an employer meet with these representatives “at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and Nos. 01-3798, 01-4149 5 conditions of employment.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(d). The Supreme Court has held that matters that are both “plainly germane to the ‘working environment’ ” and “not among those ‘managerial decisions, which lie at the core of entrepreneurial control’ ” are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 441 U.S. 488, 498 (1979) (quoting Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 222-23 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring)). We give substantial deference to the Board’s determination that a matter is subject to mandatory collective bargaining because such determinations are within its particular expertise. Ford, 441 U.S. at 497; Jones Dairy Farm v. NLRB, 909 F.2d 1021, 1027 (7th Cir. 1990). The Board determined in Colgate-Palmolive that the use of hidden surveillance cameras is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining because it found the installation and use of such cameras “analogous to physical examinations, drug/alcohol testing requirements, and polygraph testing, all of which the Board has found to be mandatory subjects of bargaining.” 323 N.L.R.B. at 515 (citations omitted). It found that hidden cameras are focused primarily on the “working environment” that employees experience on a daily basis and are used to expose misconduct or violations of the law by employees or others. Id. The Board held that such changes in an employers methods have “serious implications for its employees’ job security.” Id. at 515-16. The Board found that the use of such devices “is not entrepreneurial in character [and] is not fundamental to the basic direction of the enterprise.” Id. at 515 (citing Ford, 441 U.S. at 498, and quoting Fibreboard, 379 U.S. at 222-23). We find the Board’s legal conclusion, that the use of hidden surveillance cameras in the workplace is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining under the standards set out in Ford, objectively reasonable and wholly supported. We accept the Board’s determination as conclusive in these circumstances. Ford, 441 U.S. at 498; Jones Dairy Farm, 6 Nos. 01-3798, 01-4149 909 F.2d at 1027.1 National Steel argues that Colgate-Palmolive is contrary to public policy. According to National Steel, requiring it to bargain over hidden surveillance cameras, especially as to their locations precludes an employer from meaningfully using such devices because bargaining itself will compromise the secrecy that is required for them to be effective.2 National Steel also argues that bargaining is so cumbersome that it would not be able to deploy hidden cameras quickly when the need arose. We conclude that the Board’s order, like the one in Colgate-Palmolive, is not as constricting as National Steel suggests. In Colgate-Palmolive, the Board acknowledged an employer’s need for secrecy if hidden surveillance cameras are to serve a purpose. 323 N.L.R.B. at 516 n.10. The Board’s order to National Steel preserves those managerial interests while also honoring the union’s collective bargaining rights. It only requires National Steel to negotiate with the unions over the company’s installation and use of hidden surveillance cameras and, as in Colgate-Palmolive, does not dictate how the legitimate interests of the parties are to be 1 National Steel looks to the Board’s decision in Quazite Corp., 315 N.L.R.B. 1068 (1994), for the proposition that “the Board held that an isolated, investigative undertaking involving the use of a surveillance camera is not a mandatory subject of bargaining.” Quazite is inapposite, however, as the security camera in that case was installed only to observe a faulty alarm system wire, not to monitor employees as they went about their daily tasks in the workplace. Id. at 1077. 2 National Steel argues that the cameras were not used solely to catch union employee misbehavior but whatever unknown person committed the crime. Nos. 01-3798, 01-4149 7 accommodated in the process.3 The Board’s order does not mandate an outcome of negotiations, nor does it make any suggestion that National Steel must yield any prerogatives, other than yielding the right to proceed exclusive of consultation with the union. We agree with the Board that effective accommodation is necessarily dependent on the facts of the individual case and the course of bargaining itself. See Colgate-Palmolive, 323 N.L.R.B. at 516 n.11. Here, the Board’s order is consistent with the Act’s requirement that parties resolve their differences through goodfaith bargaining; it simply directs National Steel to initiate an accommodation process, and to provide assertedly confidential information in accord with whatever accommodation the parties agree upon (such as a confidentiality agreement or protective order). The Board’s order does not eliminate National Steel’s management right to use hidden cameras and it seeks to preserve the level of confidentiality necessary to allow for the continued effective use of such devices. We reject National Steel’s argument that the collective bargaining process is so cumbersome that requiring such bargaining is equivalent to prohibiting any meaningful use of hidden cameras. In Ford, the Supreme Court rejected the employer’s similar argument that the Board’s position would result in “unnecessary disruption because any small change . . . will trigger the obligation to bargain . . . possibly requiring endless rounds of negotiation over [minor] issues.” 441 U.S. at 501-02. The Court upheld the Board’s determi- 3 In Colgate-Palmolive, the Board stated that its ruling “has no bearing upon the content of any agreement or arrangement that may emerge from collective bargaining. Nor does it address the employer’s establishment of practices on the subject matter subsequent to having bargained to impasse. It is the duty to bargain and only the duty to bargain that is involved here.” 323 N.L.R.B. at 516. 8 Nos. 01-3798, 01-4149 nation that such concerns were “exaggerated,” finding that “it is sufficient compliance with the statutory mandate if management honors a specific union request for bargaining about changes that have been made or are about to be made,” and that “problems created by constantly shifting [conditions] can be anticipated and provided for in the collective bargaining agreement.” Ford, 441 U.S. at 501-02. We also reject National Steel’s argument that it would be unduly burdensome to require it to bargain over the use of hidden cameras because ten separate local unions represent the Granite City plant employees. As the Ford Court stated, such considerations are “essentially irrelevant” because “[t]he definition of a mandatory collective bargaining subject does not depend on the number of unions within the bargaining unit.” 441 U.S. at 502 n.13. National Steel next argues that the union waived its right to bargain over the issue of hidden cameras because it knew about the company’s past use of such cameras, never made a timely request for bargaining, and previously had requested that union members install such equipment. A party to collective bargaining, however, waives its right to bargain over an issue only by clearly and unmistakably expressing its intent to do so. Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 (1983). “The failure to demand bargaining in the past, without more, does not amount to waiver if it does not unmistakably show that the union intended to permanently give up its right to bargain in the future.” Roll and Hold, 162 F.3d at 518 (citing Metro. Edison, 460 U.S. at 708 n.12). National Steel argues that the union waived its right to challenge the use of the cameras when it filed grievances over previous terminations that were based on hidden camera surveillance evidence and when it requested its employees install the cameras. Most of the other grievances that National Steel points to, however, occurred around the time of the grievance that prompted this case. The union’s failure to previously request bargaining in Nos. 01-3798, 01-4149 9 these circumstances is, therefore, not sufficient to show that the union expressed its clear intent to forego all future bargaining over hidden cameras. Accordingly, the Board reasonably concluded that the union did not waive its right to collectively-bargain over this issue. Roll and Hold, 162 F.3d at 518.