- 38 -
employee, that information would serve as a starting point for a discussion with the
employee to determine what had happened, but would not be determinative in and of
itself. KONE’s witnesses also recognized there may be valid explanations for such
discrepancies and, in such a case, that would be the end of the matter. Accordingly, I
find the Union’s characterization of a low IFP ratio as “a scar on the employee’s record
and a consequential increase in propensity for management scrutiny” is unsubstantiated
and inaccurate.
157
Second, I find that the collection and use of the IBRT Information is reasonably
likely to be effective in meeting the IBRT Purposes of, among other things, verifying
employee attendance, and ensuring accurate timekeeping and customer invoicing. The
evidence was that construction employees can work on a relatively mobile basis, at job
sites that are geographically distributed, and can move from job site to job site at times.
I accept KONE’s evidence that, given the number of job sites and the geographic
distance between them, it is not practical for a supervisor to be physically and regularly
present at each job site to provide traditional in-person supervision. In that context, I
accept that prior to IBRT 2.0, KONE’s efforts to verify employee attendance and
accurate timekeeping largely required reliance on chance observation by supervisors, or
outside complaints. The IBRT Information permits KONE to take a more informed,
accurate, and proactive approach not only to ensuring against time theft, but also to
verify that employees are at the job site for their scheduled hours.
158
In this regard, I disagree with the Union’s assertion that IBRT 2.0 only stands to
be effective against time theft, and not against general attendance problems. The IBRT
Information allows KONE to independently verify the accuracy of employee attendance,
whether that is to confirm that the employee was at work for the expected duration (the
idea of “8 for 8”), or whether that is related to determining if time theft has occurred. In
this respect, I find the Union mischaracterizes the evidence of KONE witnesses in its
final argument, and relies on specific excerpts instead of considering the evidence as a
whole and in the context within which certain questions were asked. For example, in
cross-examination, Mr. Froystad agreed with the suggestion put to him that the
geofence does not “help” if an employee “is having attendance issues but reports their
time to reflect that”. The Union relies on this evidence in part as showing that IBRT 2.0
“cannot address late arrivals, early departures, no shows, or untimely sick calls”.
However, I must consider the evidence as a whole. Clearly, if an employee does not
attend work, the application will not be turned on and there will be no reporting
information. However, if the employee arrives late, leaves early or takes extended
breaks, and the employee is running the IBRT 2.0 as directed, the IBRT Information
would demonstrate that the employee is not attending work for his full scheduled hours,
regardless of whether he then compounds the issue by claiming pay for the time not
worked. As noted, the evidence was that there may be a valid explanation, but the IBRT
Information allows the supervisor to have a conversation with the employee to
determine what occurred. In sum, in my view, IBRT 2.0 is likely to be an effective tool to
independently verify employee attendance (both in terms of general attendance issues
and time theft), accurate time keeping, and accurate invoicing, all of which are
legitimate business purposes.