The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) and the Fairmont Le Reine-Elizabeth Hotel, which it owns, are being slammed by the Administrative Labor Tribunal following a series of decisions deemed anti-union by employees.
In a judgment pronounced urgently last week, the Administrative Court orders, among others, the CDPQ and the French company Accor, manager of the luxury Montreal hotel, to put an end to the use of cameras allowing them to observe the comings and goings of the employees’ union hall.
“This is a blatant case in my opinion of a company that wants to put obstacles in the way of a union,” declared the president of the CSN, Caroline Senneville, in an interview. In more than twenty years of trade unionism, I have personally never been made aware of anything like this.”
The 950-room luxury Montreal hotel, built in 1958, is one of the prides of the real estate portfolio of Ivanhoé Cambridge, the real estate division of CDPQ. The establishment today employs 600 workers, housekeepers, reception employees, waiters and cooks, etc., all unionized and represented by the CSN.
When they returned from the holidays in January, they had the unpleasant surprise to find that new surveillance cameras had been installed in areas reserved for employees, some of which pointed directly at the entrance door to a room in the basement. floor serving as the union office.
“We already felt like we were being watched before. But there, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” he told Newspaper a long-time employee who, for fear of reprisals, asked to keep his name secret.
“There are all sorts of reasons why an employee might want to talk to their union. This can be to find out about vacations and retirement, to get involved in the union, or to present a grievance. With a camera pointing at the office door, it’s certain that we are all more fearful of showing up there.”
The CDPQ refused to comment on the situation, referring us to the hotel manager. In an interview, its general director David Connor denied being opposed to unions.
The latter specifies that the hotel has more than 200 surveillance cameras and that the addition of the cameras in question was only intended to strengthen the security of the premises after homeless people entered through the employee entrance. and that some thefts were noted. He finally adds that the orientation of the camera lenses was changed so that the door to the union premises was no longer filmed.
Regardless, in his judgment, Judge François Demers recognizes the right of an employer to secure its facilities. But the latter, he says, must do so while respecting the right of employees to participate in the activities of their union without feeling intimidated by the presence of a camera, whether functional or not.
In conclusion, the judge further ordered the hotel to “stop using any camera allowing you to see the door giving access to the union premises” and asked it to distribute to all employees concerned a copy of the interim order issued by the Labor Court.
The hotel management told the Journal that it intended to respect the ruling and to remove or move the cameras in question so that they no longer pose a problem.
