STATE OF CONNECTICUT
LABOR DEPARTMENT
CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF STAMFORD
DECISION NO. 4345
-AND-
OCTOBER 14, 2008
STAMFORD FIREFIGHTERS,
LOCAL 786, IAFF, AFL-CIO
Case No. MPP-27,350
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Attorney Robert J. Murray
For the City
Attorney John M. Creane
For the Union
DECISION AND ORDER AND PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
On June 19, 2008, the Stamford Firefighters, Local 786, IAFF, AFL-CIO (the Union) filed a complaint with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations (the Labor Board) alleging that the City of Stamford (the City) violated § 7-470 of the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA or the Act) by installing an electronic surveillance system in the fire station located on Hope Street in Stamford.
After the requisite preliminary steps had been taken, the Labor Board issued a notice of hearing on September 15, 2008 ordering a hearing to take place on October 6, 2008. Because the allegations contained in the complaint also involve actions of the Springdale Fire Company (Springdale), a private, non-profit fire company located in Stamford, the Labor Board notified Springdale of the hearing by sending a copy of the notice of hearing to Springdale’s President at its official address.
Springdale did not appear for the hearing. The City and the Union appeared, were represented and submitted a full stipulation of facts for the Labor Board’s consideration. The City and the Union waived the opportunity to present testimony and waived the filing of briefs in this matter.
Based on the entire record before us, we make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and we issue the following order and partial dismissal of complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City is an employer within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is an employee organization within the meaning of the Act and at all times relevant has been the exclusive representative of all uniformed and investigatory positions within the Stamford Fire and Rescue Department.
3. Springdale is an autonomous volunteer fire company operating within an area of the City and its relationship with the City is currently governed by a “Memorandum of Agreement” dated November 13, 1997. (Ex. 4). Springdale owns the fire station on Hope Street in Stamford and the City provides Springdale with financial and other assistance necessary for Springdale’s provision of fire services. The Memorandum of Agreement specifically provides:
1. …To the extent Springdale’s rules, policies and directives concern mandatory subjects of collective bargaining under [MERA] changes to such rules shall be made only after prior bargaining has occurred, to the extent necessary under law, between the City and the designated bargaining agent of the Stamford Fire Rescue employees.
4. As of November 13, 1997 all paid personnel at Springdale became, and to this date remain, members of the Stamford Fire and Rescue Department, and are represented by the Union. (Ex. 4).
5. The City has assigned twenty employees to provide fire protection services within the Springdale district; with the minimum of 4 shifts with 4 personnel per shift.
6. Sometime in January of 2008, Springdale began the process of installing surveillance cameras inside and outside its Firehouse.
7. On January 27, 2008, the Union filed a grievance challenging the installation of surveillance cameras in the Springdale Fire Station. (Ex. 6).
8. On January 29, 2008, Fire Chief McGrath sustained the grievance. (Ex. 7).
9. On January 31, 2008, Public Safety, Health and Welfare Director Callion sent a letter to Springdale in which he advised Springdale that the surveillance cameras could not be installed unilaterally without first bargaining with the Union. (Ex. 8).
10. Despite repeated requests by the City to Springdale to reconsider installing surveillance cameras, Springdale has insisted that it will stick to its position of installing the cameras. (Exs. 8a, 8b, 8c and 9).
11. On June 19, 2008 the Union filed the instant complaint.
12. As of September 2, 2008, Springdale has installed and activated 15 surveillance cameras at the following locations:
· 1 camera – Outside driveway area on south side part of Firehouse
· 1 camera – Front ramp on west side part of the Firehouse
· 1 camera - North side interior stairwell
· 1 camera – South side interior stairwell
· 1 camera - East side rear exterior entrance
· 1 camera - East side rear hallway entrance
· 3 cameras – Apparatus Floor, east side rear interior
· 4 cameras – Apparatus Floor, west side interior
· 1 camera - Radio/Watch desk area
· 1 camera – 2nd Floor Kitchen area
13. In addition Springdale has asserted the right to install cameras at 2 employee lounge areas of the Firehouse, notwithstanding Section 31-48(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes. (Ex. 10).
14. Springdale has defended its action by citing certain incidents in 2002 and 2003 as well as one other in 2007, as justification for implementation of surveillance cameras. (Ex. 5).
15. In accordance with the dispute resolution provisions contained in the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and Springdale, the City has attempted to correct the situation by demanding mediation which to date has been unsuccessful.
16. Despite having sustained the January 29, 2008 grievance (Ex. 7) the City insists as a practical matter that it is unable to unilaterally effect the removal of the surveillance cameras or to prevent installation of cameras in the employee lounges in the future.
17. Interior surveillance cameras have not been installed to address any specific security issue or a specific employee but rather for general surveillance purposes.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The installation and operation of any electronic surveillance device or system in the kitchen and employee lounge areas of the Springdale Firehouse is prohibited by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-48b and as such constitutes an illegal subject of bargaining.
2. The City did not violate the Act by failing to bargain about the installation or operation of the surveillance cameras in the kitchen or lounge areas of the Springdale Firehouse.
3. The installation and operation of any electronic surveillance device or system in the other areas of the Springdale Firehouse as described in the Findings of Fact above is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
4. The City of Stamford violated the Act by failing to bargain about the installation and operation of any electronic surveillance device, the installation and operation of which constitutes a mandatory subject of bargaining.
DISCUSSION
In this case, we must decide if the installation and operation of the surveillance cameras at the Springdale Firehouse constitutes a mandatory subject of bargaining. The record shows that there are both interior and exterior cameras in use or planned for at the Springdale Firehouse. The City and the Union have submitted their concurring opinions that installation and operation of all interior cameras constitute a mandatory subject of bargaining.[1] The City has not submitted its opinion with regard to exterior cameras. The party actually responsible for the installation and operation of the cameras, Springdale, chose to absent itself from the proceedings before the Labor Board although it was notified of the hearing and could have presented its position.[2]
We have previously analyzed a case involving the use of surveillance cameras. In Town of Rocky Hill, Decision No. 3565 (1998) we found that under very limited circumstances, the installation and use of an electronic surveillance device to investigate a crime or serious misconduct in the workplace does not require bargaining when properly limited in scope. In that case the scope of the surveillance was limited to a specific desk with a limited time frame based on evidence that a crime had been committed within the police department. In the same case, we cited Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Local 15, ICWU, AFL-CIO, 323 NLRB 515 (1997) for the general proposition that widespread surveillance of a work site is considered by the National Labor Relations Board to be a mandatory subject of bargaining. We stated:
Were we presented with a case involving the large scale type of surveillance present in Colgate-Palmolive Co., supra, we would likely view it as a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Rocky Hill, supra at 6.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed our decision stating:
The instant case presents a situation of the very limited use of a surveillance camera for a discreet purpose. It does not involve the transformation of the work place by the widespread on-going implementation of surveillance cameras. The former scenario represents the employer’s field of unilateral action; the latter is subject to mandatory collective bargaining.
International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 316 v. The State of Connecticut Department of Labor, Board of Labor Relations, et al, Dkt. No. CV99 0577452 (5/5/98, McWeeny, J.) affirming Town of Rocky Hill, supra.
Against this backdrop, we decide this case.
We begin with the camera installed in the kitchen area of the Firehouse and the two cameras that Springdale plans to install in the employee lounge areas. We find the use or proposed use of these cameras invokes the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-48b which prohibits employers from operating such a camera in areas designed for the health or personal comfort of the employees such as rest rooms, locker rooms or lounges.[3] While we are not statutorily charged with enforcing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-48b, we must determine whether the installation and operation of cameras in these areas is a negotiable item, a determination that necessitates a review of § 31-48b. We have often been called upon to take into consideration the provisions of ancillary statutes in our statutory decision-making. Greenwich Board of Education, Decision No. 3141 (1993); City of Stamford, Decision No. 3354 (1996); State of Connecticut, Decision No. 3543 (1997); State of Connecticut Labor Department, Decision No. 3660 (1999). We have said, “a subject may…be found to be an illegal subject of bargaining if it would result in a contract provision which would be contrary to other provisions of State or Federal statutes or other controlling laws.” Greenwich Board of Education, supra, at p. 6 citing State of Connecticut, Ex. Rel. Division of Criminal Justice, Decision No. 2708-A (1989); Cheshire Board of Education, Decision No. 2153 (1982).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-48b explicitly prohibits the City from allowing the use of the cameras in the lounges. We further find that the kitchen area is designed for the health and personal comfort of the employees and as such, the kitchen area is included in the statutory prohibition. Based on the language of § 31-48b, we also find that the operation of cameras in these areas is an illegal subject of bargaining. In this regard, any contractual provision agreed upon by parties in a collective bargaining relationship that attempted to give any rights to employers to use cameras in these areas would be contrary to the statute. The legislature did not leave any room for negotiation about this particular subject; the prohibition is without condition or exception and any violation of the statute is accompanied by a fine and possible imprisonment. The language of the statutory section leads us to conclude that the legislature intended that this particular topic be removed from collective bargaining. As such, ironically, we find that the City has not violated MERA by failing to bargain about cameras in the lounges and kitchen. Enforcement of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-48b cannot be achieved through the processes of this Board. The Union must pursue its remedy through the Division of Wage and Workplace Standards in the Connecticut Department of Labor.
We now consider the other interior cameras installed by Springdale. The record establishes that these cameras were installed only as general surveillance devices. They were not installed to address any specific security issue and there is no evidence of any suspected or potential criminal activity. The only attempted explanation for the installation of the cameras is correspondence from the Springdale President stating that the camera in the “day room” or lounge is to “ensure the safety of Springdale and Stamford Fire & Rescue firefighters.” (Ex. 9). The record also contains a description, written by an unknown person in the Springdale Fire Company in July 2008, of alleged incidents in which members of the bargaining unit, dating back as far 2002, allegedly displayed childish behavior. (Ex. 5). These statements are hardly evidence of a need for even the limited type of surveillance allowed in Rocky Hill, supra, let alone wholesale surveillance of the entire workplace. We find that the widespread surveillance of all other interior points in the Springdale Firehouse to be a mandatory subject of bargaining. As such, the City violated the Act by failing to bargain about the installation and use of these interior cameras.
Finally, we consider the exterior cameras located on the south side driveway, the front ramp and the east side exterior entrance. In appropriate circumstances we might be convinced that the use of surveillance cameras in certain exterior locations is a management prerogative because it does not infringe upon the working conditions of the employees and because the employer is allowed to ensure the security of its public buildings from potential intruders and damage. However, in this case, no such argument has been made. Further, the record does not indicate that the employer placed these exterior cameras so as to be able to observe potential intruders or to keep an eye on other safety hazards. In fact, there is no explanation at all in the record concerning the surveillance devices on these particular exterior locations. We do not even know if the cameras are observing areas used by the public. We do know from our experience with fire fighter cases and by general knowledge, that members of fire fighters’ bargaining units often congregate at places outside the firehouse for various purposes. Unlike typical employees, firefighters are “at work” for extended time periods and their work includes some duties in areas outside the station. Further, because of their unique schedule, firefighters sometimes congregate outside in their down time. This unique schedule and work environment, coupled with the rest of the evidence indicating that all the cameras were installed as a way of surveilling upon employees, leads us to conclude that the use of the exterior cameras is also a mandatory subject of bargaining in this case. As such, the City has violated the Act by failing to bargain about the use of the exterior cameras.