In a recent case[1], an arbitrator ruled on the reasonableness of installing telemetry-GPS systems in all company vehicles to collect data on vehicle speed. Considering the nature of the data collected, its use, and the intended purpose, it was determined that this did not constitute an abusive working condition for employees and did not infringe on their privacy.
Following a one-day unpaid suspension of a worker for unsafe driving, the union filed a grievance requesting the cancellation of the sanction, removal of the disciplinary measure, reimbursement of lost wages, and full monetary compensation for all damages suffered[2]. During the hearing, the arbitration tribunal allowed the union to amend its grievance to include a claim for punitive damages based on an alleged violation of privacy. The union argued that the GPS systems installed in the employer’s vehicles amounted to constant surveillance and thus constituted an unreasonable working condition.
The claimant has been employed by Hydro-Québec since 1988 as a field agent. As part of his duties, he drives a company vehicle equipped with a telemetry-GPS device. When the vehicle exceeds the speed limit, the employer is alerted, helping to reduce accident risks due to inappropriate driving. The claimant is aware that the vehicle is equipped with such a device and knows that the employer can detect speed limit violations.[3].
On June 1, 2021, the device recorded a speed of 130 km/h while the claimant was driving on a highway with a speed limit of 100 km/h, leading to the disciplinary sanction. This was the claimant’s first disciplinary measure, and he had a clean record.
The arbitrator first addressed whether the GPS system constituted an unfair and unreasonable working condition.[4] He noted that, in general, case law recognizes that constant or continuous surveillance via camera or audio during work constitutes an unreasonable working condition. However, that was not the case here.
The GPS telemetry system monitors vehicles, not individuals. It only flags incidents where a speed of 120 km/h is maintained for more than 30 seconds. In such cases, anonymized data is recorded, analyzed, and sent to the vehicle’s responsible director for follow-up. Only at this stage is the driver identified to ensure proper follow-up. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that this does not amount to constant or continuous surveillance and is not an unfair or unlawful working condition.
Regarding privacy concerns, the arbitrator emphasized that privacy protection at work is limited, except in areas like restrooms or break rooms. In this case, the data transmitted by the GPS system is anonymized and does not contain personal information about the driver. Only verified and validated data related to speeding is sent to the director to raise awareness about accident risks. These data come directly from the vehicle and are strictly related to vehicle safety and the health, safety, and physical integrity of workers and the public.
The arbitrator found that the one-day suspension was inadequate and disproportionate, especially since the employer failed to consider mitigating factors such as the claimant’s clean disciplinary record, 33 years of seniority, and the fact that this was his first incident of this nature.[5] The tribunal held that the employer should have followed its progressive discipline policy for speeding violations. As a result, the suspension was replaced with a written warning, deemed a fair and reasonable measure to raise the worker’s awareness of the risks associated with speeding.
[1] Hydro-Québec and the Syndicate of Technical and Office Employees of Hydro-Québec (CUPE-FTQ, Local 2000), 2024 QCTA 211
[2] Ibid., para. 2
[3] Ibid., para. 25
[4] Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR, c. C-12, art. 46
[5] Hydro-Québec and the Syndicate of Technical and Office Employees of Hydro-Québec (CUPE-FTQ, Local 2000), supra, note 1, para. 118
This publication was featured in Transport Magazine.
