Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
,Itu-, K' c Y/
PUBUC EMPLOYEES
FDERATION AFL-cto
G'{;;(800) 342-4306
w
rnceas:
Septembcr 24,2014
Susan M, Ke;ll
FesA*nt
Crlcs J. Garca
Seuxry.Trcaxwr
I3y Certified
#eWffiWYweyffi"ffi
tl/ayrre R, Eayer
YJyne Ssrrc
Barbr A. UfiBr
V Prcs**fiE
gtottN
Ca6qNons:
Kevi H;nl:
egiorr
cnnie Wccd
Flegian X
Ite
John Frince
ogioo 3
PDter 6anks
t t "r"
t ;;'*.
gtT't}l{#
#ef
Rgon q
James trfcifilt
AeEcfi 5
Kevi Conly
Re$on 6
rm
onahue
Flgon 7
FJiklii L. g1
Reglon
VM SIII
Region g
Sf. Nb!hn
ftegion
lt
i6rry fu16jg-rsM
Regor
ll
Ccnslnce Blts
Feglort f ?
Tnutts:
onaitl G. icrn
K(nr5tr1 J.
ichr'sii
Llu{eea Lelr,.rr
the
interrogarions, the DIC Labor Relations Representative clearly and unequivoc]lly siated
that DIIC review'ed surveillance cafirera videos in response to an anonymous corrplaint to
dctcrrnine t'v-hat tinre the above-referenced employees reported to and/or deparrd from
work' '['he employees tvere compelled under fhreat of discipline to ansrver queitions about
the dat allegecily retrieved from the surveillance cameras. In acfdition, iin.* Iv{ay 16,
2t14, Pl-iF-rerp:csented employees at DEC have been counseled about time and rfendnce
issues based in rvhofe or in part on clata from surveillance carneras.
On or about June 13, 2014,tET; filed a grievance challengiiig the above-refbrenced
as a viclation of the timekeeping provisions of Article 12.17
of the lrBFlState Agreement as well as the side letter confained at p. 159 of the pEF/Srate
Agreement,
use
Afliild with th meican Fedratjon ol Teachers, FL-ClO and Service Enpyses htrnfnat Union
ffitr#tr#,f
effirrger
fliui*fr'
B.v decision dated August 14, 2014. DEC issued a Step 2 tlecision denying the
grievance. DEC did not deny that suneillance c.amera data was used to determine what
tinle fhe cmploy'ees at issue entered and/or exited the building, but rather asserted that they
may use r.vhatever means ae available to substantiate or clispel allegations of misconduct.
Argument
DFICI violated
video
attendance purposs.
ln conclusion, l)EC cnflot use video strveillance clata f'or any purpose related to
tinrekeeping. wliether it is irr substantiating allegatons of time and attendance violations.
inten:ogating, counseling or disciplining employees relating to time and attendance as
dcring so vioiates Arlicle 12.17 and the side letter contained at p. I59 of the PFiState
Agreement.
Remgcl.v" Soueht
DEC rnust cease and desist from using video surveillance cam,eras Rrr timekeepng
purposes. rescind any counseling memos, intc-rrogations, records of inerrogations lrd
nofices crf discipline lhat may have been conducted or ssued in whole or in part basscl on
tirneleeping inftrrmrtion fronr surveillancc cafferas. In arJdition, DC must make r.vhole
an.v- employee r.vho had tirne docked or w,ho had to charge accruals due in whole or in part
I
?
t
I
I'iom data fiorn surveillance meras. I'EF also requesrs any other relief that may
clcetncd just ancl proper.
Lre
Debra Greenberg
Field Represenfative
Keith Browne
'ferry I'yoe
Denise I:Iobson
ffitrtrtr#lflFfljffi
':t,? f r:j I!&
ew;firtffir#ff#
i
I
,