Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Employee’s workplace audio recordings inadmissible in grievance proceeding, (Apr 1, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

Under California law, a person may only record a communication with the consent of all parties.

An arbitrator denied a grievance filed by a terminated employee who contended that an employer violated a collective bargaining agreement by refusing to admit audio recordings he made at the workplace into the grievance proceeding. The arbitrator’s decision found that California law prohibits recording confidential communications without consent and bars the use of such unlawfully obtained recordings in any proceeding. The arbitrator also noted that company policy and TSA security rules independently prohibited recording at a cargo screening facility. Because the recordings violated both law and workplace rules, they were incompetent evidence. Accordingly, the employer’s point of order excluding the recordings was granted (DHL Express and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 70 (Dooley, Arb. Dec. 9, 2025)).

Recordings in the workplace. This dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence under the parties CBA during a grievance concerning an employee’s termination. The employer’s workplace policies prohibit the use of any recording device to photograph, video, tape, or otherwise record company property or premises. Employees are also prohibited from using any device to photograph, video, tape, or otherwise record other employees, customers, vendors or third parties in the workplace without that individual's explicit knowledge and permission.

The parties met to adjust the grievance of the employee who had been terminated from his employment. During the presentation of evidence, the employee sought to introduce audio recordings that he had made without the consent of other employees while on company premises. The employer raised a point of order to exclude the recordings. Thereafter, the matter was sent to an arbitrator.

California law and the employer’s handbook prohibited recordings without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication. Further, the parties stipulated that the facility where the grievant was employed is a TSA-regulated Certified Cargo Screening Facility. Under TSA security directives, unauthorized audio/video recording is prohibited.

Permissible evidence. It is a well-accepted principle of labor arbitration that the judicial rules of evidence articulated in the state and federal rules of evidence do not strictly apply in labor arbitration. However, the permissive standard of evidence acknowledges the arbitrator’s ability to sort out what evidence is competent, relevant, and material to the case.

Under California law, a person may only record a communication with the consent of all parties. Further, state law explicitly prohibits the introduction of these recordings. Moreover, DHL Express policies and TSA regulations prohibit recording in company facilities. Violations of these policies are subject to discipline up to and including termination.

There is no authority to the contrary which would permit an arbitrator to consider audio or video recordings made by an employee in DHL facilities, especially those made without the consent of every person who was recorded.

Accordingly, the proposed recordings were excluded from consideration in the grievance procedure. The employer’s point of order was granted.

Attorneys: Phillip Rinaldi for DHL Express. Dominic Chiovare for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 70.

Companies: DHL Express; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 70

Cases: Labor Arbitration Discharge Procedure EvidenceDiscovery ContractClaims