Jane Fraser asks if some employers are taking staff surveillance to the extreme.

 Workers can experience a great deal of stress as a result of unreasonable deadlines and heavy workloads.

Surveillance and tracking technology adds to this mounting pressure, quite often having an effect on the health of employees. While an over-use of monitoring techniques is commonly viewed as an invasion of privacy, newer, more intrusive methods of keeping an eye on staff are continually developed and rolled out in many sectors,

The Health and Safety Executive now recognises occupational stress as an employment health issue and have found surveillance to be a contributing factor. 

Tagging employees

Regardless of these findings, many companies continue to track employees using Radio Frequency Identification devices (RFID), which are most commonly found in logistics or retail environments. These tags have come under fire from human rights campaigners due to their intrusive nature.

RFID tags are often used to track stock and deter shoplifters. They are also used in science, to locate animals in the wild and in the medical profession.

The human equivalent is worn around the ankle, wrist or waist and allows management to instantly locate a staff member and view their work patterns. In addition, newer versions of the devices can chart facial expression, blood pressure and even brain waves.

More recent RFID tags have courted much controversy due to the depth of their monitoring capabilities. As a result, any company looking to roll out this technology throughout their workforce must provide ample justification for doing so.

If workers are fully aware of the reason they are being subjected to such intense scrutiny, they have a right to know what kind of data is being collected and why. Additionally, all sensitive information relating to employees must be stored securely, as loss or theft of such personal data would breach the Data Protection Act 1998.

The use of biometric screening technology at building sites for the 2012 Olympics is an example of justifiable surveillance technology, which is not intrusive, yet proves effective. This multi-million pound technology requires employees to pass palm and facial recognition tests before they are granted access to certain areas, with a view to reducing sabotage and theft.

If management are justified in implementing methods such as these, for example, to curb theft, they must also take stock of the effects it is having on staff. It is important to weigh up the benefits of introducing such methods with the possible impact it may have on staff output and wellbeing.

Legal implications

If it was found a workplace injury or death was directly linked to heightened stress as a result of constant surveillance, an employer may come across several legal implications, including a fatal accident inquiry or prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

Alternative technologies are also making inroads. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) have a common feature in many company vehicles. This allows management to monitor employees’ movements while on the road. There are many practical uses for GPS in employment, but, these can also be applied in such a way which is counter-productive.

Recent statistics show one third of all speeding and tailgating incidents in towns and on motorways are caused by drivers who are ‘on the job’. Attending important meetings and meeting unreasonable deadlines are catalysts for this trend, suggesting ‘at work’ drivers are under increased pressure from their employers to get somewhere fast.

GPS need not be used as a means of reminding staff they have a job to do. It has many other practical uses such as locating staff in the event of an emergency or measuring driving distance when claiming travel expenses. It should be used sensibly and must be deactivated once the employee is off the clock.

Adding pressure to what can already be a stressful task may lead to accidents and legal action if the incident can be linked to the employer.

RFID technology, in particular, may have positive applications in the fields of science and medical studies, but requiring employees to wear them as part of their job description may prove counter-productive and increase risk.

The key is finding the right balance between effective monitoring to protect the business without jeopardising health and safety and staff security.

Jane Fraser is a partner in the employment, benefits and pensions department of Maclay Murray & Spens LLP.

Share this: digg   del.ico.us   Newsvine   Reddit   Furl   technorati   Facebook

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name (required)

Email (required) (not published)

Website

Title

POST

By posting on this website you are agreeing to abide by our website comment policy and all posts are subject to the approval of the website editor. We will remove posts that contain offensive or threatening language, personal attacks on the writer or other posters, posts that are off topic and posts that are considered spam or specifically used to promote any commercial products or services. Any poster who repeatedly contravenes the policy will be banned from posting on the website.