![]() The union filed a grievance, alleging that the introduction of Touch ID at the Vanderhoof facility and the collection and use of biometric data of employees was a breach of employee privacy and the BC Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). There was still the possibility of time theft if an employee scanned in, left work, and then returned and scanned out, but Canfor felt that there was a low risk of that happening. ![]() ![]() The system generated data when employees entered and exited that was stored in the biometric information for that employee, including the employee’s identity along with start and stop times. The system then created a biometric template of key points of the fingertip unique to the employee and then discarded the digital image. To enroll, employees had to scan one of their fingers on a sensor, which would create a digital image of the fingertip. Touch ID involved the use of finger scanning technology to identify and validate an employee’s attendance at work, including entry and exit times. Touch ID’s advantage over the others was that there was less risk of employees punching in for others – called “buddy punching” – with swipe cards or errors with more manual tracking.Įmployee privacy concerns were small compared to an employer’s need for accurate records from finger-scanning technology, an arbitrator ruled. Canfor elected to use a biometric time clock system – called Touch ID – over a manual time entry system and a system with swipe cards or fobs. The company informed the union and employees in 2018 that the unified time, attendance management, and payroll system was being developed. In 2016, Canfor decided to modernize its human resources information systems across its operations. There was also a concern with time theft, as the only way to catch an employee arriving late or leaving early would be if a supervisor happened to catch them. The system placed a large burden on supervisors and there was a significant risk of error, which could lead to employees not getting paid properly. This was done manually and there was no process for verifying whether employees worked their scheduled hours or arrived and left on time – the company relied on observations of the supervisors and an honour system. Traditionally, supervisors were responsible for entering the time worked by employees. It operates a facility in Vanderhoof, BC, that includes a sawmill, planer mill, and a log yard. “Ultimately, all of the analysis came down to, was this the least intrusive method to accomplish what the employer was intended to accomplish?” adds Penner.Ĭanadian Forest Products (Canfor) is a forest product company that operates across North America, producing lumber, finishing products, pulp, and paper. “So they were able to establish, ‘Yes, we are implementing this technology to address a legitimate business concern.’” “The employer had a legitimate business interest in modernizing their work monitoring system and curtailing people clocking in for work and not showing up or leaving early,” says Michael Penner, a labour and employment lawyer at Kent Employment Law in Victoria. ‘The threshold that they had to meet was low because the system was so minimally invasive’Ī British Columbia arbitrator has upheld an employer’s implementation of a biometric attendance system as a reasonable use of employee personal information.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |