PRIVACY SUIT BY TRUCKERS TO RECEIVE A SECOND LOOK

SAN FRANCISCO -- When a mirror fell off the wall of a restroom at a truck
terminal in Riverside County three years ago, it was like a scene out of a
bad spy movie: Underneath the two-way glass were cameras and microphones,
installed by a trucking company to detect drug use by its drivers.

Until now, the drivers have gotten nowhere in their claims of invasion of
privacy. Federal district judges dismissed their lawsuit without a trial,
and an appeals panel ruled in April that even though the surveillance was
apparently a crime, the truckers could only file grievances under their
Teamsters Union contract.

On Wednesday, however, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced that
a majority of its judges had voted to reconsider the case and order a new
hearing before an 11-judge panel.

"What's at stake here is whether union employees in the state of California
are covered by California's workplace surveillance protections," said
Matthew L. Taylor, an attorney for the truckers.

A lawyer for Consolidated Freightways, which owned the truck terminal,
couldn't be reached for comment.

According to the panel ruling in April, the company installed cameras and
microphones behind mirrors in restrooms at its terminal in Mira Loma in 1995.

Taylor said the surveillance had ended only when it was revealed by the
fallen mirror in September 1997 and the equipment was seized by sheriff's
officers. He said about 15 cameras had been used, including some in the
ceiling.

California law makes it a crime to install two-way mirrors in restrooms or
to use cameras to look through openings into restrooms.

The panel majority in April said the company's conduct was "arguably
criminal" but couldn't be the subject of a lawsuit because privacy issues
were addressed in the truckers' union contract.

Federal law bars unionized workers from suing for damages over disputes
that require interpretation of their contracts. The court majority said the
Teamsters contract, which allowed discipline of workers for theft or
dishonesty picked up on video cameras, might be interpreted to give
truckers less privacy protection than state law would otherwise provide.

Dissenting Judge Raymond Fisher said no union contract could eliminate a
worker's right to sue over an employer's criminal conduct. Surveillance is
a common and proper subject for labor-management bargaining, but not "the
illegal, clandestine surveillance of restrooms through holes hidden behind
two-way mirrors," he said.