By Gillian MacLellan
As employers across the UK now look at another sustained period of their workforce working from home, we are hearing tales of some employers using tracking technology to keep tabs on their employees.
For example, it was recently reported that PwC had developed facial recognition software aimed at certain employees, including traders who operate in a highly regulated environment. This type of software tracks whether an employee is online or has taken a long break away from their computer. Alternative methods involve tracking key strokes.
Can employers legitimately take these steps?
Monitoring gives rise to significant data protection considerations. Under data protection legislation, monitoring is likely to be considered “high risk processing”. As such, the first thing employers need to do is carry out a data privacy impact assessment. Employers will need to be satisfied that the monitoring is “necessary and proportionate”. An employer needs to consider whether there is an alternative and less intrusive way of achieving the same outcome.
Importantly the employer must be transparent with its workforce about what it’s doing. Secret monitoring or covert surveillance in the workplace is rare and save in cases where there is a suspicion of criminal activity is unlikely to be justified; it certainly won’t be justified as part of routine monitoring of home-working.
Workplace monitoring also triggers a number of additional legal obligations for employers. Particularly for those in the public sector, human rights implications under Article 8 of the ECHR come into play most notably the right to privacy. In the UK, an employee is entitled to have a reasonable expectation of privacy and employers need to carefully balance the competing rights under the ECHR.
Employers also need to think about the potential impact of monitoring. A US study showed that employees who knew they were being monitored experienced increased stress and anxiety. Employers should also consider the impact monitoring will have on trust at a time when employees are already facing significant uncertainty and additional pressures. If, for example, an employer is monitoring to ensure employees are “doing what they should be doing when they should be doing it”, is the better approach not to set targets and if people don’t meet those targets to deal with those individual situations rather than to monitor all and create a general impression of distrust? Employers must be careful not to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Employers who decide to embark on monitoring must consider carefully how they communicate these measures to employees. In 2019, Google employees accused their employer of creating a “spying tool” and took to the media to complain.
Something else for employers to think about in this space; many employers are considering just now this concept of the “new norm”. The idea that this pandemic will impact forever how we work. At the heart of this new norm is a need to change our mindsets in relation to home-working; to stop seeing it as the easy option or as I heard it recently described “the skiver’s charter”! How does monitoring your workforce as they work from home play into this narrative?
Monitoring is not a straightforward issue. There will be cases where it is appropriate, where, for example, it is necessary for security reasons or the data will be used to support employee wellbeing, such as picking up where excessive hours are being worked. However, my strong message for employers is not to rush in before they have had a long hard think about whether it is genuinely necessary in their environment, taking into account not only legal considerations but the wider impact on morale and trust.
Gillian MacLellan is a partner at international law firm CMS
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel