By Chris Casillas and Jordan L. Jones
In Mason General Hospital (Mason Public Hospital District 1), Examiner Irvin held that the employer did not refuse to bargain by unilaterally installing a new security camera in the Diagnostic Imaging Department. Examiner Irvin found that the hospital’s decision to install the new security camera was not a mandatory subject of bargaining.
In this case, Mason General Hospital already had security cameras that monitored the hospital’s hallways, entrances, and parking lots. In October 2014, a point controller used to control the hospital’s wireless devices, including devices that monitor patient vital signs in the ER, was disabled after being unplugged. The point controller was located in an IT closet that was only accessible via a keypad code. The employer subsequently installed a security camera that could provide a view of the IT closet.
The union, who represented some 30 technical employees that would be affected by this new security camera, filed an ULP. The union argued that in King County, the Commission found a duty to bargain in cases where the employer unilaterally installed new security cameras or changed the way existing cameras were utilized. The union also contended that the new camera’s audio capabilities and its placement near department managers’ offices tipped the scales of the Commission’s mandatory subjects of bargaining “balancing test” in favor of the employees because of the camera’s adverse impact on working conditions.
Mason General Hospital on the other hand argued that the placing of the new camera in the Diagnostic Imaging Department’s main hallway had little or no effect on employee working conditions because the hallway was among other areas of the hospital where security cameras have been in use for years. The employer also contended that “it has no past practice of consulting with the union on the installation, placement, or use of security cameras, which are not actively monitored or used in disciplinary actions other than as corroboration of information obtained by other means.”
Examiner Irvin noted that whether a specific item is a mandatory subject of bargaining is a question of law and fact for the Commission to decide on a case-by-case basis. Examiner Irvin stated that the “Commission balances “‘the relationship the subject bears to wages, hours, and working conditions’ of employees, and ‘the extent to which the subject lies ‘at the core of the entrepreneurial control’ or is a management prerogative.”
Examiner Irvin found in this case that that the external microphone that would enable the new security camera to record audio was not installed and that without this capability, the “camera recorded video of activity in the main hallway of the DI department as the existing cameras had prior to installation of the new camera.” Examiner Irvin pointed out that in Community Transit (see our recent blog on this case), the employer’s decision to use updated video technology on its buses was found not to be a mandatory subject of bargaining. Examiner Irvin held that in this case:
[T]he employer’s interest in being able to monitor an IT closet containing equipment directly related to patient safety predominates over employees’ misplaced concerns over the audio capabilities of the security camera in question. As a result, the employer’s decision to install the new security camera in the DI department was not a mandatory subject of bargaining.
The union’s ULP complaint was subsequently dismissed.
As with the recent decision in Community Transit referenced above, the outcome in this case was largely the product of a unique set of facts rather than any shift in PERC’s general case law finding the installation of a new video monitoring system, particularly with the express purpose to discipline, constitutes a mandatory subject of bargaining. In this case, when applying the balancing analysis, it was determined that the new camera conformed with an existing video monitoring system and the employer’s concerns over patient safety were determined to be paramount in this circumstance. To the extent the facts had been slightly different, for example if the employer had added a new capability to monitor and record audio, which didn’t previously exist, the outcome of the case likely would have been different. The case is a good reminder that under the balancing analysis even like cases can result in different outcomes based on a few discrete factual differences.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on the Statutory Right to Bargain and the Statutory Prohibition on Unilateral Changes.
