Union pushes to change workplace spying rules, employers warned to give notice of surveillance

Employers have been warned to ensure their surveillance activities are clearly outlined to employees before they occur and are in line with relevant legislation, as one of the country’s largest unions attempts to introduce a consultation process for any workplace monitoring workers.

The Australian Workers’ Union is attempting to have the Surveillance Act changed to ensure employers consult with their employees before they install any type of surveillance infrastructure, including cameras and GPS devices.

The union has delivered a submission to an inquiry on the Workplace Surveillance Act which outlines its recommendations.

“Essentially what we’re trying to do is ensure that surveillance in the workplace is part of a consultation process with the employees,” AWU assistant secretary Stephen Bali says.

But the inquiry serves as a warning for employers, workplace legal expert Peter Vitale says, reminding business owners that if they are to install surveillance equipment such as cameras or GPS equipment, clear and deliberate notice is needed.

“Particularly when you’re talking about GPS tracking, I suspect there is not a great awareness of the fact that if you tend to use the data for monitoring purposes, you have to provide the employee with notice that’s going to happen.”

While the legalities for surveillance may differ slightly from state to state, depending on what type of surveillance equipment is being installed and for what purposes, Vitale warns there is a national requirement to provide employees with prior notice of surveillance.

“My advice to employers in the past has been that if you’re going to start using this type of equipment, you must provide notice to employees and provide relevant information inside the workplace, which could be a vehicle.”

Bali has warned that as part of an inquiry into the Surveillance Act, the AWU has recommended that employers be subject to a consultation process before surveillance equipment is installed. He argues this is to ensure the equipment is being installed for the correct reasons.

“We’re not against surveillance per se, because it’s designed to protect the assets of the company. But if workers are being watched in the old-style management process like standing behind them with a stop-watch, we find that to be wrong.”

“We want to know through the consultation process who has access to it, when can they have access, how long it’s being kept. Many times we find there is no need for it.”

Bali says employers need to ensure they are installing surveillance equipment for the right reasons, and not just use them as a substitute for managers.

“The reason you have supervisors is to make sure the workload is accurate. The surveillance shouldn’t be a replacement for that.”

Meanwhile, Vitale warns that if workplaces are short-staffed and are using surveillance equipment to keep tabs on employees, they need to ensure that employees can identify notices that say they are being watched.

“In relation to activity that takes place inside the workplace, you cannot undertake covert surveillance – unless there is implied consent.”

“That’s usually obtained through putting up notices at the entrance to workplaces, rooms, warehouses, etc. You need to give consent before they appear on candid camera, so to speak.”

If employers are going to be monitoring internet usage and emails, Vitale says businesses need to check with their relevant state legislation as this changes from region to region. For instance, Victorians may not require a permit from a magistrate to look at emails, while in New South Wales this may be the case.

“Employers need to look at all the different legislation before they start using this type of equipment.”