Report on the workforce monitoring and surveillance practices: a practical guidance for employers

Résumé du document

Employers have always monitored their employees in one way or another, to assess the quantity and the quality of a worker's performance. Monitoring should be understood in a broad meaning: employers can decide to use hidden cameras or CCTV cameras; they can open e-mails or keep records of phone calls as well as check regularly the websites visited by employees. As they are responsible for theirs employees, they must be aware to a certain extent of what their employees are doing and how. This need to monitor employees can also be explained by the fact that employees can breach the rules of confidentiality and thus jeopardize the firm, or for reasons of security. Technological progress provides employers a wide range of tools to achieve their goals, such as CCTV cameras and monitoring software. Technically speaking the vision of a Big Brother watching the employees all the time is now possible. Thus this question of employee monitoring involves issues about data protection and human rights such as the respect of private life.

Extraits

[...] Thus this question of employees monitoring involves issues about data protection and human rights such as the respect of private life. The potential for abuse is huge: the information may be inaccurate, it can be collected for one purpose and used for another or they can be given to a third party without the consent of the employee Thus a growing number of regulations have been enforced since 1998 in order to protect the employee and to delimit how far the employer can use monitoring practices without infringing on employee's privacy. [...]

[...] She had to fill a questionnaire and disclosed that she suffered from sickle- cell anaemia. The employer refused to give the applicant the job after discovering the medical report. The court held that the general practitioner was under a contract of service with the employer and has thus no duty of care to the applicant. There was no breach of privacy. The Employment Codes of Practices The Employment Practices Code published by the Information Commissioner in 2005 comprises four different parts Recruitment and Selection, Employment Records, Monitoring at Work and Medical Records. [...]

[...] But the Act does not precise what the consent is about: about this particular communication? Or about all communications? Because this clause can be included in the contract of employment without a free consent of the employee and can concerned all further business communications. Oliver argues that in general the RIPA “hardly limits employer monitoring practices” and favours business interests at the expense of employee privacy. Several amendments have been done to the original draft of 2000 and to the DTI Consultation Paper. These amendments make the employer's life easier when intercepting communications. [...]

[...] Some advice before introducing the monitoring practices Before introducing a monitoring policy, you should carry out a formal or informal assessment of the impacts on such practices on your business. Your employees can feel more stressed or alienated if they know they are monitored. Surveillance practices can undermine employees' creativity and thus the firm's performance. The better workers can leave the company if they have the feeling they are losing their autonomy. Moreover customers can be worried concerning privacy issue. [...]

[...] At the beginning the DPA was aimed at protecting the employee's right to privacy. But the business difficulties when dealing with data and especially manual files can not be neglected: it is very time-consuming and costly for employers to comply with the legislation. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in question Some criticisms have aroused around the RIPA. They are said to be weighted in favour of the employer because there is no requirement of proportionality, as I pointed out earlier. [...]