CCTV Employment Law

Employment lawyer Paul Whitfield answers questions on CCTV Employment Law.

As an Employer can I use CCTV to Monitor my Employees?

Q: I want to put CCTV cameras in the office to watch staff. Do I need to tell them?

A: CCTV is covered by the Data Protection Act and as a result you need to tell your employees unless there are “exceptional circumstances”. This means only where there are grounds for suspecting criminal activity or equivalently serious misconduct. It should be targeted and stopped once that investigation is completed.

Q: I just want to use it to make sure people are working hard.

A: Then you would need to give the employees clear notification that you were going to do and why. You should consider if the adverse impact would justify the benefits.  The Information Commissioner has produced guidance (Deciding whether to use CCTV or continue using CCTV) at http://www.ico.gov.uk. You should refer to that or take legal advice.

Q: Can I use a video recording of an employee walking and carrying shopping when they are off sick with a bad back to dismiss them?

A: In a recent case employers did this and the dismissal was held to be unfair. The Tribunal did not say that the video evidence could not be used but said it was not enough on its own to justify a dismissal. A lay persons interpretation of the film was not enough evidence to dismiss the employee. A proper investigation and fair hearing would still be required but the video could be part of that.

For more details on CCTV Employment Law Paul can be contacted on 0161 283 1276 or paulw@foxwhitfield.com.

www.foxwhitfield.com

Fox Whitfield is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority  – Roll Number 524972

Fox Whitfield’s Head Office is based in Manchester with offices throughout the UK to help and advice on CCTV Employment Law.

Do Christian employees have the rights to wear a cross at work?

In this article we look at recent employment law cases and whether Christians have the rights to wear a cross at work.

On 15 January 2013 the European Courts came to a decision on the well known case of the British Airways‘ employee, Mrs Eweida, who was stopped form wearing a visible cross at work.

The Court decided that Mrs Eweida’s insistence on wearing the cross visibly was a manifestation of her religious belief and was therefore protected. The refusal of British Airways to allow her to wear a visible cross at work was an interference with her right to practice her religious beliefs and therefore rights to wear a cross at work.

The Court then had to decide if the refusal to allow her to wear a visible cross could be justified by BA.  On one side of the scales was Mrs Eweida’s right to manifest her religious belief; on the other side was BAs’ right to project a certain corporate image. They took into account that there was no evidence that the wearing of items such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees, had any negative impact on BA’s image.

The Court decided that BA’s desire to protect its corporate image was not sufficiently important to displace her right to practice her religion through wearing a visible cross. She won her case and was awarded her 2,000 Euro in compensation.

At the same time the Court also heard another case. Ms Chaplin was a geriatrics nurse at an NHS hospital. Following a uniform change, a cross she had worn for some time became visible and she was prohibited from wearing it by management for clinical safety reasons. She persisted in wearing the cross and was moved to non-nursing, administrative duties.

Ms Chaplin lost her case as the Court found that the employers clinical safety reasons were enough to justify the restriction on her wearing a visible cross.

The Court also threw out two other cases.  Ms Ladele, a marriage registrar with Islington Borough Council refused to officiate at civil partnerships due to her faith. Mr McFarlane, a counsellor with Relate who refused to provide psycho sexual counselling to homosexual couples on the basis of his religious beliefs. They were both dismissed because of the organisations’ commitment to providing services in a non discriminatory way. The aim of protecting the rights of others not to be discriminated against has been upheld as a valid justification for not accommodating an employee’s religious views, even where the effect on the employee is that of losing their job.

What does this actually mean? The lesson for employers is to just try to be reasonable and as long as you can explain why a particular policy is necessary, you’re probably fine. You should try to accommodate religious beliefs in the workplace if that is reasonable.

Paul can be contacted on 0161 2831276 or paulw@foxwhitfild.com

www.foxwhitfield.com

Employment Law Solicitors – Head Office based in Manchester with offices located throughout the United Kingdom.

What is a Compromise Agreement?

Please be aware that Compromise Agreements are now called Settlement Agreements. Please see http://www.foxwhitfield.com/settlement-agreements/

A compromise agreement is a legally binding agreement between an employer and employee that settles a dispute between them. Employers are increasingly using compromise agreements at an early stage of a dispute to prevent possible complaints in the tribunal.

A compromise agreement is the only way an employee can validly “contract out” of their employment law rights. It usually provides for a severance payment and an agreed reference, in return for which the employee agrees not to pursue any claim or grievance they may have in an employment tribunal. Without a valid compromise agreement an employee might be able to take the money and then still bring a claim. Employers should always ensure they get advice to ensure the agreements are up to date and binding.

It is thought that the increasing use of these agreements may be part of the reason why the most recent statistics from the Employment Tribunal show a 15% reduction in Employment Tribunal Claims.  In a survey conducted last year by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development more and more employers (7 out of 10 surveyed) were using compromise agreements rather than risk the costs and uncertainly of employment tribunal claims. Our experience is that there are more not fewer disputes between employers and employees than ever at the moment.

Employees must take independent legal advice from a lawyer on the agreement for it be valid and the employer will normally pay towards the cost of this advice. Fox Whitfield regularly advise on and negotiate agreements for both employers and employees.

Paul Whitfield can be contacted on 0161 283 1276 or paulw@foxwhitfield.com

Fox Whitfield is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority  – Roll Number 524972

Fox Whitfield Solicitors Head Office is based in Manchester with branches throughout the UK to help both employers and employees with compromise agreements.

Changes to the way that Employment Tribunals work

The Coalition Government are in the process of reviewing and changing employment law. In the latest development they have published details of changes to the way Employment Tribunals will work.

Unfair Dismissal

Employees who started a new job after April 6 this year will need to work for their employer for two years or more before they can claim unfair dismissal. Employees already employed before that date need only 1 years service.

Tribunal Costs

New fees will be introduced for employees who wish to use the Employment Tribunal system. For the first time there will be a fee to issue a claim and a further fee if the case goes to a full hearing.

The fees to issue a claim will range from £160 to £250 and the hearing fees range from an additional £230 to £950. The level of fee will depend upon the type of claim being brought but all but the simplest cases will incur the higher fees. If the employee is successful the Tribunal may order the employer to reimburse these fees. There will also be a system in place to waive fees for those who are unable to pay.

The fees are expected to be in place by summer 2013.

The purpose of the fees are to meet some of the Government’s costs in running the Tribunal system, which was £84 million last year. It is expected that this will also reduce the number of claims brought in the Tribunal, particularly low value claims.

Paul Whitfield can be contacted on 0161 283 1276 or paulw@foxwhitfield.com

The Use of Social Media in the Workplace

Employment law is slowly catching up with modern technology but there are still some grey areas where social media and employment law overlap. For example: –

Who owns LinkedIn contacts?

If you are paid by your employer to build up business connections using social media your employer will own those connections. For example lists of customers created by employees during their employment should belong to their employer and not be kept after employment.

The courts have applied this to electronic address books. An employee who kept all their contacts, including their personal contacts, in their employer’s e-mail system was required to hand it over when they left as those contacts belonged to their employer.

What about LinkedIn? This is yet to be tested in the courts but a recent case indicated that an employee who used his employer’s contact database to send LinkedIn connection invitations to clients and candidates had no right to keep those connections once employment ended. The employer could demand that an employee delete those contacts made via work but not personal contacts not made in connection with the employee’s employment.

The law on this remains uncertain and employers who rely upon their employees building networks should use their contracts or policies to create some clarity as to who owns what.

Can you dismiss an employee because of their Facebook status?

Potentially yes.

There have been a large number of high profile and embarrassing dismissals because of Facebook. For example:

• An Apple Store employee dismissed for posting a series of rants about his employers on Facebook lost his claim for unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal said that Apple’s social media policy banned critical remarks about the company and that Facebook posts were not truly private.
• An employee who put as her status “OMG I HATE MY JOB!!” and referred to her boss in very unflattering terms was dismissed when she forgot that she had added her boss as a friend and he read her status.
• There have been countless examples of employees being dismissed after falsely claiming to be sick. In one example an employee was dismissed after he put his status as: “Kevin is not going to work, f… it – I’m still trashed. SICKIE WOO!”

The scale of this is huge; a Freedom of information request revealed that in the Police Force at least two police officers have been sacked, seven resigned and 150 faced disciplinary action after Facebook posts in the past four years.

Can you sack an employee for uploading their CV on LinkedIn?

Generally not, employees are free to seek alternative employment in their own time without their employer interfering.

However, there is currently a case in the Reading Employment Tribunal where an employee who posted his CV on LinkedIn is bringing a claim for unfair dismissal. His employers claim that their policy is that employees should not indicate they are interested in “career opportunities” and that this employee included disparaging remarks and confidential information about the company in his CV.