Can an employer to spy on an employee? In the U.S. there have been several cases when the company hired private investigators to spy on their employees who are on sick leave. American courts allow such situations to make surveillance of workers where there is reasonable suspicion that an employee violates or breach of contract of employment. Do you spy an employee is also permitted in the UK?
Under British law, to observe an employee without his knowledge outside of work is a violation of his privacy, so that he may sue the employer to court. If the information obtained by covert surveillance were the main cause of dismissal the employee, the exemption is deemed to be unfounded. Moreover, if an employee discovers that he was secretly watched, he may be released from work citing compel the dismissal (constructive dismissal ). The basis for terminating the contract will be in this situation, violation of the duty of trust to the employee.
While every case of clandestine observation of the employee depends on the facts, there are a few rules of general application.
First, all surveillance must have adequate and reasonable justification. An example might be a suspicion that the employee grossly violated the conditions of the contract or his duties did not come to work without proper explanation or threatening public health and safety (eg, a bus driver goes to the pub before working the night shift).
Secondly, the employer must have adequate grounds for suspecting an employee. Believe that the employee "up to something 'or suspicions drawn from occupational rumors are not a sufficient justification for the invasion of privacy the employee, even if these speculations turn out to be correct. Thus, prior disciplinary action, employers should carry out appropriate investigations and give the employee a chance to respond to the allegations. Only in this way they will avoid accusations of unjust dismissal.
Thirdly, the employer must make sure that an employee surveillance is absolutely necessary to achieve desirable, but reasonable goals. In addition, employers have a duty to take action initially less intrusive in the privacy of the employee (eg, see documents or observation in the workplace). Fourthly, the degree of the observations should be proportionate to the desired objective of making the reservation. For example, surveillance of employee's family is not a proportionate measure. Fifthly, it is recommended that in exceptional cases, employers warned employees about the possibility of their observation. Indication of whether surveillance can also be found in the Code of Conduct disciplinary company.
On McGowan v Scottish Water , Employment Appeals Tribunal ( Employment Appeal Tribunal) ruled that the shooting suspect's home worker for falsifying inspection card was justified, although it violated his privacy . Mr. McGowan lived in the quarters for the workers at water treatment plants, over which supervised. Scottish Water's steering felt that McGowan did not Watches at the station as often as stated in their control cards. They hired private investigators, and therefore the kryjomu nagrywali dom Pana McGowana z zewnątrz. Zarówno Sąd Pracy jak i Sąd Apelacyjny ds. Zatrudnienia uznał, iż obserwacja pracownika była uzasadniona i proporcjonalna, pomimo faktu, iż zainstalowane kamery nagrywały również pogrzeb ojca Pana McGowana, który zmarł w czasie, gdy jego syn był obserwowany. Podobnie w sprawie McCann przeciwko Clydebank College , półetatowy pracownik był filmowany bez jego wiedzy. Pracodawca podejrzewał, iż pracownik naruszył warunki umowy pracując w innym zakładzie będąc jednocześnie na zwolnieniu lekarskim. Clydebank College hired private investigators who filmed both the home and workshop of Mr. McCann, where he allegedly worked. Recording of the workshop confirmed their suspicion (the recording of the house was not taken into account), and therefore MacCann was released. Employment Appeals Tribunal ruled that in this situation, observation of the employee was proportional to the achieved goal. However, the court also found that the measures taken by the employer would not be lawful if it posunąłby further. In contrast to the above examples, labor courts are reluctant to consider the evidence as a result of observation of the employee. For example, on Barret v London Underground, the court found the employee for unfair dismissal when the employer has recorded Berreta Lord, when he was playing squash while on sick leave due to injury the ankle. Barrett won the case by proving that his general practitioner advised him to play sport, to accelerate convalescence. The employee received £ 10 000 compensation.
In summary, employers, employees suspected of breach of contract, you should not perform surveillance bez ich wiedzy, a jeśli w wyniku tych obserwacji pracownik zostanie zwolniony, sąd może uznać, iż zwolnienie to było bezpodstawne.
