Motion to protect employee privacy denied

HR managers rejected a motion that employees need their privacy protected
against big brother employers. During a debate set up by the Employment Lawyers
Association and the Institute of Personnel and Development last month, Dr Clive
Morton of Anglian Water Services said that openness, consultation and workplace
agreements would mean no new laws were needed.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

Email(Required)

OptOut

From time to time, we will send you emails about selected products, events and services from Personnel Today and OHW+ - but you can choose to opt-out at any time. If you do not wish to receive these emails, please tick this box.

Name

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Δ

Jose Pottinger, director of the US engine manufacturer Cummins, said a
rational rather than emotional response was needed. Most surveillance tactics
were not used to gain unfair advantage but to gather data for research and
training. If employee monitoring was intrusive, employees would vote with their
feet, she added. But most were supportive of a level of surveillance if they
knew when, for how long and under what criteria.

Speaking for the motion, Robin Allen QC argued the law provided little
protection for employee privacy unlike rules on unfair dismissal, redundancy,
discrimination, the payment of wages and Tupe.