V

,Itu-, K' c Y/

New York Stb

PUBUC EMPLOYEES
FDERATION AFL-cto

G'{;;(800) 342-4306

P.O. Box 12414

Albany, NY 12212-2414

w
rnceas:

Fax (518) 785-1814

Septembcr 24,2014

Susan M, Ke;ll

FesA*nt
Crlcs J. Garca

Seuxry.Trcaxwr

I3y Certified

Mail, RRR: 7011 0470 0003 5848 4033

#eWffiWYweyffi"ffi

tl/ayrre R, Eayer
YJyne Ssrrc

Barbr A. UfiBr

V Prcs**fiE
gtottN
Ca6qNons:
Kevi H;nl:

egiorr

cnnie Wccd

Flegian X

;st p_{} Egq"

tu{r. r4ichael Volfone

Ciovernor's Office of Employee Relatons

-l'wo
Lmpir e Statc Plaza
Suire 1201
Albany. NY 12223-1250

Ite

John Frince
ogioo 3
PDter 6anks

t t "r"

t ;;'*.

{: t " r:Ni L*:ft

gtT't}l{#

#ef

PF Class Action (Keith Browne et al.) and NyS Dcpartment of

Environ mental Conservation
Contract Grievancc - Arficle 12.17
DEC File #Gt4-22

Rgon q
James trfcifilt

AeEcfi 5
Kevi Conly

Re$on 6
rm

onahue

Dear Nlr. Volforte;

'Fhe Public Emplo-vees
Iederation, AFL-CIO ("pIiF" hereby appeals thc aboverefbrencecl grievance tir Step 3 of thc PtjF/State grieyance procedure.

Flgon 7

Backs{ou.nd and Facts

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

On May 16, 2014, ttvo interrogations of

oonducted by the NYS Department

PEF-representetl employees were

of Environrnental Conservation (DEC. buring

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

of t'ideo surv'eillance data

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

Article 12,17 of the PEI/State Agreernent by using

video

Article L2.17 provides that "[N]o employee in

this tulit shail be required to punch a time clock or recor<i attendance with a timekeeper."
Irurther, the sidc letter at p. 159 sfates that "data frorn electronic recognition systerns will
not be used firr ny tinte and attenclance purposes" (emphasis added). DEC-'s use of
video surveillance clata was undoubtedly for timc keeping purposes. Tt does not matter
whetl-err it is routine or in response to anonymous or other cornplaints. When the data is
used to deternline r.vhen a employee reported to or departed fiom rvork. it is tilnekesrping,
surveillanrce data for timckeeping purposes.

and that is clearly pr:ohibited by the collective bargaining agreement.

"Office of Internal Audit" to justif_r, violating Article

l2 o1'the PEF/State Agreement simply because Interna Audit claims it can use any means
necessar)i to investigate misconduct. DEC's Office of Internal Audit is just as bound by
tlie PI:F/State rlgreement as is any other part of DEC. lvloreover, DFIC's assertiou that it
onlv uses vicleo surr,'eillarce information in rcsponse tc' cornplaints clf nisconduct is
irrelevant. If the virfeo surveillance inforrnation is being used to determine when an
ernployee reported to or departed from rl,ork, it is tirnekeeping and thereftrre it is irrelevant
'hether or rlot it is done on a routine basis. Such data is prohibited for any tims and
DEC' cannot hide behind their

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

Thank you fbr your attention to this matter.

Debra Greenberg
Field Represenfative

Keith Browne

'ferry I'yoe

Denise I:Iobson

Mark Cadrette (701 10470 0003 5848 4040)

Karcn Conte

ffitrtrtr#lflFfljffi
':t,? f r:j I!&
ew;firtffir#ff#

i
I
,