Employer had employee followed.

[maroondevo52]

Employee with 9 years service, no disciplinary's, no absence who has recently been signed off with a seriouse injury.

Unable to drive which is a major part of her job (Sales Executive), employer contacted her doctor to confirm injuries, then sent her to their own occ Health Doctor who confirmed her own doctors diagnosis. However, the company had her followed by a private detective who filmed her being aided from the house to the passenger side of the car to pick up kids from School.

 

The company then called her in for an "informal meeting" whereby they tried to force her to sign a consent form for the Private investigator. She declined and they got nasty with her. The Company has no Surveillance / Monitoring Policy whatsoever, and under the circumstances they had no reason to have had her followed. They have clearly breached the Data Protection Act along with the Human Rights Act. This is nothing short of constructive dismissal.

 

I know for a fact that the Company has been looking for excuses to get rid of this employee for several years. She is an extremely hard worker, who meets targets and there is no complaints.

 

What can she do?

[Hacked_Off]

I might be completely wrong here, I would get in touch with the information commissioners office to confirm the legalities and go from there.

[Atlas01]

[Commercial link removed.]

 

Put a grievance in so there is a paper trail, looks like they gambled and lost, If wouldn't advise CD as she will then be gambling but if they do dismiss her soon she has the grievance to fall back on as part claim of unfair dismissal

 

It really is up to her how many waves she wants to create here, it may be something the ICO writes a strongly worded letter to the employer about, it may even be enough for a CD but i'd not be taking that chance without being sat in front of a solicitor asking them for something of this level of technicality and legal argument

Edited June 4, 2013 by honeybee13

[Emmzzi]

if she actually cannot do the job, as sh cannot drive, she will lose it anyway over time

 

I'm not following what a detective is needed for in the first place, or why the are asking to use the evidence, which didn't show her driving

[maroondevo52]

Thanks for the replies,

 

She will be getting in touch with the ICO tomorrow and also putting in a grievance.

 

Emmzzi, regarding them employing a detective, she does not know why they did this, as usual I may not have the whole story but had been asked to ask for advice on cag.

[Emmzzi]

If she is still incapacitated this whole story just doesn't add up. I'd do a bit more digging and would be totally unsurprised if it turned out she was in fact driving.

[Emmzzi]

oh and as ever - what part of the human rights act *exactly* has been breached? It's the godwins law of HR remember...

[fletch70]

This sounds like stories i have heard about a huge chocolate manufacturer.

Maybe she will lose her job but they should try to redeploy her to a job she can do. That is if possible.

[fletch70]

oh and as ever - what part of the human rights act *exactly* has been breached? It's the godwins law of HR remember...

 

I would imagine her right to a private life. Often senior management do things that HR then have to try and salvage, not that they would admit it

[maroondevo52]

If she is still incapacitated this whole story just doesn't add up. I'd do a bit more digging and would be totally unsurprised if it turned out she was in fact driving.

 

I'll try get more info later, like you say why would they want her to sign a consent form for use of the private investigators findings if they didn't have anything they could use against her.

[Emmzzi]

I would imagine her right to a private life. Often senior management do things that HR then have to try and salvage, not that they would admit it

 

Any invocation of the human rights act without a specific clause attached can be safely ignored; 99.99% of the time it is mentioned it's used incorrectly.

[postggj]

May i ask how she knows a private detective was following her, and recording her actions

 

Has her employer admitted the use of a private detective in writing, or is this just bluff from the employer to force the situation

 

That may be construed as stalking.

 

Remember

 

It is not an offence to take video or still frame pictures in a public area, anyone can do it.

 

It becomes unlawful if an individuals private space, such as pointing a lens towards an individuals private home is violated. That can be called Voyeurism

 

Section 5 Public Order Act also covers this, alarm, distress, and harassment

Edited June 4, 2013 by squaddie

[maroondevo52]

They brought her into an "informal meeting" whereby they proceeded to show her the surveillance they and on her which showed only her being helped walking from her house to the passenger side of the car (this was the first time she had left the house in 3 weeks) and went to the School to pick up the kids. They proceeded to bully and harass her into trying to get her to sign a consent form to say that it was agreeable with her that the Private Investigation took place. She decline.

 

This was instigated by the H.R Department which makes it even worse. They have no monitoring policy whatsoever so they took it upon themselves to do this and now they are just trying to cover their ass as they know it was wrong. There was no reason to have her followed as this was the first time in 8 years she has been off sick and she has only been off for 6 weeks.

 

They sent her to the Occupational Health Doctor who's report confirmed what her own doctor had advised, therefore there was no justifiable reason to have had her followed.

 

One other thing is that she was called by the H.R. Manager whereby he stated that she was lying about her condition (despite 2 Medical Reports) and that she was abusing the absence policy (I know for a fact that this is untrue as I am fully aware of what the absence policy consists of). Today, she received a letter from him inviting her to a Disciplinary stating that she said she would sign the disclaimer and has now changed her mind. At no point did she indicate this to him.

 

I am currently preparing a Grievance letter on her behalf and this will be submitted to the company within the next couple of days.

Edited June 4, 2013 by maroondevo52

[postggj]

If they have shown pictures of her and her house , so they were pointing the lens in the direction of her house,

 

I would be tempted to make a complaint to the police, as stated, recording on the public highway is fine, pointing a lens towards an individuals private property is unlawful, unless through law enforcement measures

[Emmzzi]

makes no logical sense at all.

 

Well, it's not actually illegal to employ a detective. I would assume they are licensed, adhere to code of conduct, and only filmed in public places.

 

Best I can suggest is raising a grievance citing breakdown in trust; but then, it depends what the preferred outcome is.

[Emmzzi]

If they have shown pictures of her and her house , so they were pointing the lens in the direction of her house,

 

I would be tempted to make a complaint to the police, as stated, recording on the public highway is fine, pointing a lens towards an individuals private property is unlawful, unless through law enforcement measures

 

Squaddie, I think the specific law you refer to would be helpful here, if you have it

[postggj]

That is the key

 

Filmed in public places

 

Pointing a lens at an individuals house recording them on their own drive would be unlawful

[postggj]

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 created two new offences of stalking by inserting new sections 2A and 4A into the Protection from Harassment act 1997

 

Section 5 Public Order Act also covers this, alarm, distress , and harassment

 

we also have Voyeurism

[Emmzzi]

Thanks squaddie!

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/111/enacted

 

mm. You could argue there was no intention to cause fear and there was an intention to detect crime. Do you know if there have been any test cases that are similar? (not my specialist area!)

 

I'd still kick off with an internal grievance - fastest cheapest route, doesn't need a lawyer to interpret.

[postggj]

Actus Reaus/Mens Rea is applicable as the private detectives were aware of their actions. The fact a crime has been committed, and would be in the public interest to prosecute would satisfy the prosecutors code test

 

Pointing the lens towards the private dwelling and recording would be enough for a prosecution

Edited June 4, 2013 by squaddie

[Emmzzi]

mm. so it depends on the film angle. interesting, thanks!

[postggj]

Yes, what would you say if when recording this lady getting into her car, the picture also recorded her daughter getting out of the bath seen through an open window, remember, they will be using a zoom lens

[Emmzzi]

Yes, what would you say if when recording this lady getting into her car, the picture also recorded her daughter getting out of the bath seen through an open window, remember, they will be using a zoom lens

 

Currently I'd say that's a whole heap of assumptions that we have no basis to think is true!

[postggj]

Assumptions are one thing, the truth is another

 

The scenario i gave was just an idea of the possibilities of recording an individuals house without prior permission AND IS WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE

 

A council CCTV operator was prosecuted recently after using a street monitoring camera to peer into a women's house unlawfully, the same situation can be linked to this case

 

To play down the seriousness of this case is unwise as it is a direct breach of privacy

 

If this individual has confirmed the images are pointing towards her abode, and recorded her and her house, without prior permission, then an unlawful act will have been committed by the private detective

Edited June 4, 2013 by squaddie

[Emmzzi]

let's wait and see what the "if" turns out to be before speculating....