The BC Information and Privacy Commissioner recently issued a decision on the use of GPS monitoring technology in company vehicles. The complaint prompting the investigation was made by employees who used company vehicles for work, but who kept the vehicles at home and used them to travel to and from work without reporting to the company’s office. The GPS monitoring technology recorded data about the manner in which the vehicle was being driven, including start and shut off times, distance travelled, speed travelled, and sharpness of acceleration and braking. The GPS technology was not used to constantly monitor employees, but rather, generated reports only where the vehicle’s use deviated from accepted norms.
The complaint alleged the GPS data was “personal information” subject to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The employer argued that it was information about the vehicle, not the individual driver, and was therefore not personal information regulated by PIPA. The Commissioner rejected the employer’s argument. She found that the GPS data was personal information, concluding that personal information is “information that is reasonably capable of identifying a particular individual…and is collected, used or disclosed for a purpose related to that individual”. While the employer was using the data collected to assess the use of its vehicles, it was also using it to manage employee performance.
The Commissioner then considered whether the special rules allowing for collection and use of “employee personal information” under the PIPA applied. She concluded that they did. The collection and use of the data was for a purpose reasonably required to establish, manage or terminate an employment relationship, and the employees were given notice of the collection. In reaching this conclusion, the Commissioner considered the sensitivity of the information, the likely effectiveness of the collection in meeting the purpose for collecting it, whether there were alternatives that were less intrusive, and whether the collection and use would offend the employees’ dignity. Applying these factors, she concluded the collection and use in this case was both reasonable, and authorized under PIPA.
While the Commissioner stressed that reasonableness will be determined in the particular circumstances, the test will more likely be met where employers can establish a legitimate business purpose for implementing this type of technology.
