Dispute over installation of workplace cameras in metalwork company

An ongoing conflict concerning the installation of cameras in the workplace in a Belgian metal company shows that the protection of privacy is an important aspect of working life. Workers in the company opposed the placement of the cameras in their workplace and organised a wildcat strike in protest. Negotiations are continuing but no compromise has yet been reached, which suggests that the existing national agreement to regulate such a camera installation has deficiencies.

Strike action

In 2005, Strong Trailers At Your Service (STAS), a metalworks company specialising in the construction of trailers, installed 32 cameras on the shop floor of the factory premises. According to the company’s management, these cameras were installed to increase safety awareness at work, to improve work organisation and to prevent theft. The workers reacted with a wildcat strike to the sudden and – in their opinion – excessive installation of cameras.

In response to the strike, the management covered up most of the cameras installed. Soon after, a consultation and negotiation process was initiated between the company management and the local trade union representation in an effort to resolve the conflict.

Management decision causes further conflict

In September 2006, STAS management decided to go ahead with the final installation and use of the cameras, as they considered that the talks would not lead to a compromise or a suitable solution to the dispute. The workers once again reacted in protest to their employer’s decision, by holding a week-long strike. As a result, new, conciliatory negotiations were started with the support of the sectoral committee and by an official conciliator of the Ministry of Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue (SPF Emploi, Travail et Concertation sociale/FOD Werkgelegenheid, Arbeid en Sociaal Overleg).

However, the conflict is still pending and the company has been affected by a further seven days of strike action between early September and mid October 2006. Negotiators meanwhile are trying to find the most diplomatic solution, in an attempt to restrain the anger of the workers and to lead to an honourable compromise for the company. The management has promised to remove some of the cameras, such as those most disputed by the workers, and is prepared to include a clause in the work rules (arbeidsreglement/règlement du travail) stipulating that any filmed material will not be used as evidence to sanction an individual employee. Nevertheless, the workers are doubtful as to the managerial aims in respect of the camera installation.

National agreement on privacy

The ongoing dispute proves that the installation of cameras in workplaces is a sensitive issue. Employees are concerned about the associated feelings of being monitored and controlled, and the possible privacy infringements (TN0307101S). In 1998, in an effort to prevent conflicts from arising, the Belgian social partners concluded a specific national and intersectoral agreement on this matter in the National Labour Council (Conseil National du Travail/Nationale Arbeidsraad, CNT/NAR). The binding agreement CAO/CCT No. 68 (36Kb MS Word doc) formulated procedural rules to follow when installing surveillance cameras on workplace shop floors (BE9807150N).

This agreement stipulates that the installation of surveillance cameras is only allowed to promote health and safety at work, to protect the company from theft and to ensure quality control in the production process and/or the tasks of the workers. It is not permitted to monitor a worker by camera on a continuous basis. The number of cameras to be installed must only be in proportion with the goals an employer is aiming to reach. Finally, workers have to be informed of and consulted on the company’s objectives, as well as the duration and times of filming. However, the employer and the employees, including employee representatives, do not have to reach agreement to install the cameras; the workers or their representatives do not have co-determination rights in this case.

Commentary

The placement of surveillance cameras in workplaces is a delicate matter for employees. Workers resent any form of surveillance while at work. The STAS conflict shows that the existing procedures proposed by the Belgian industrial relations system have shortcomings. Moreover, a form of agreement from the workers’ side to the camera surveillance plan seems to be necessary before any installation of equipment, in order to avoid a potentially rapid deterioration in the industrial relations climate in the workplace. The current Belgian regulations on this matter do not provide for such forms of co-determination and, as a result, have certain practical limitations.

Guy Van Gyes, Higher Institute for Labour Studies (HIVA), Catholic University of Leuven