The federal Privacy Commissioner investigated the complaint and found the employer's purposes for collection and use of the information captured by the video surveillance cameras, as stated below, were reasonable:

Purpose 1:     Ensure the safety and security expectations of customers and employees.
Purpose 2:     Reduce and discourage incidents of vandalism and illegal conduct.
Purpose 3:     Limit the potential for liability for damages due to fraud, theft or inappropriate operational procedures.

None of the aforementioned purposes was to monitor or manage employee performance. Cameras were located in employee work areas to monitor movement of vehicles, freight and passengers, and in employee work areas where there was a large amount of cash and freight handling.

The Privacy Commissioner was satisfied that, "the use of the video surveillance system could be supported for the purposes as outlined by the organization — ensuring security and safety, reducing illegal behaviour and limiting the potential for liability." 2 

The Privacy Commissioner found that although adequate signage did exist in the bus depot, the employer had not made reasonable efforts to explain to its employees the purposes of the surveillance.

This case teaches us three lessons:
Video surveillance in the workplace must be accompanied by sufficient signage to alert employees that they may be monitored.

If there is to be video surveillance in the workplace, employees must be informed of the purposes the information will be used.