Why hasn the HRA stopped employers monitoring their staff?
The HRA only affects covert surveillance. So where the employee knows that monitoring is being carried out, there is no expectation of privacy. In addition, the HRA only applies to public bodies in this regard. However, if an employment claim was made and the employer wanted to use evidence obtained through covert surveillance, the tribunal or court, as public bodies, would have to consider whether it could admit evidence obtained in this manner. If we monitor an employee and find that they are guilty of misconduct, can we use the evidence from the surveillance to defend an unfair dismissal claim? The right to privacy under the HRA will only be upheld as long as it does not infringe upon other rights. This means if evidence obtained in breach of an individual’s right to privacy is crucial to another individual’s trial (hereby infringing upon the right to a fair trial), it may then be accepted as evidence. A recent case – McGowan v Scottish Water – demonstrated this in practice. An empl
Related Questions
- Juvenile correctional officers will get a smaller caseload with the requirement that there is at least one staff monitoring every 12 youth. What about caseloads for case managers?
- How do you audit information supplied by developers? What elements of ‘on-the-ground’ monitoring will be done by a CEV staff member?
- Why hasn the HRA stopped employers monitoring their staff?
