Security Disclosed My Confidentiality

[woodpecker01]

I work at a factory as a cleaner, Everyone who works there needs to swipe a pass to get on & off site, The pass is issued by security staff and all your details which includes a photo (that is taken by security) is filed on computer and can only be accessed by security.

 

The problem is a contractor who does`nt work for security had enlarged & printed my photo then placed it on top of a christmas tree for everyone to see, I took it straight to my manager.

 

Can anyone tell me if security have broken the law, If so what can I do about it

[JonCris]

A very big YES they have.

 

Not only can you report them to the ICO but depending on the circumstances also the police for behaviour liable to cause distress & harassment.

[buzby]

If it was me, I think I would have been flattered.....!

[JonCris]

One man or woman's meat another's poison. Nevertheless if the subject is upset it's a very serious matter & apart from all the other things mentioned also harassment in the work place. The employer has a duty to stop it & to deal with those responsible.

 

They have after all left the company open to a claim which (I'm assuming it's a female) could include sexual harassment

[woodpecker01]

I`ll have a look for to see if ICO has a website, Some people may think what happened to me was funny but it is really a joke gone too far

[natheyabdn]

Hi,

 

I was wondering - my employer divulged details of how long i've been off work and that i was on long term sickness to a third party - this is illegal isnt it?!

 

I have an internal grievance about to start but feel they are just going to say "We wont do it again"

 

That isnt a good enough response for me - what would be the next course of action.. i thought probably an employment tribunal?

 

Am i entitled to compensation for the distress and further upset this has caused including worsening my illness?

[JonCris]

Without knowing the circumstances it would be difficult to advise. Suggest you speak with a lawyer

[Jimbo44]

Hi,

 

I was wondering - my employer divulged details of how long i've been off work and that i was on long term sickness to a third party - this is illegal isnt it?!

 

I have an internal grievance about to start but feel they are just going to say "We wont do it again"

 

That isnt a good enough response for me - what would be the next course of action.. i thought probably an employment tribunal?

 

Am i entitled to compensation for the distress and further upset this has caused including worsening my illness?

 

It rather depends on who your employer gave the information to and for what purpose. Are you a member of a trade union?

 

Also, the ultimate place for a grievance to end up is an Employment Tribunal. However, there are many stages to go through before this beginning with the company's grievance procedure (and the appeals process, if necessary) being exhausted first.

 

My employer recently contracted out the sikness/absence reporting and return to work functions by employees to a third party company. As this company was registered under the Data Protection Act they were given some basic details about all employees (name, date of birth, workplace, line manager etc.). However, they were not given any details about employee's sickness/absence history.

 

As an aside to this it was rather amusing that the third party company's claims to be able to reduce sickness/absence proved somewhat...er...'erroneous' to say the least!! They no longer hold the contract and the functions they undertook are now back in-house!!

[JonCris]

jimbo I do hope they consulted you & sort your consent to contract out your data because if they didn't (& it doesn't matter if contract company is registered) they have breached the DPA

[johno1066]

There's a big difference about sharing personal info and using a photograph; why don't people get a life, inform the people concerned they aren't or are not happy about a certain episode and warn them that if it happens again, they will take it further.

 

FFS, all people seem to want to do is find ways of [edit] each other. Try doing an apprenticeship or being in the forces then you'll know what humiliation is.

 

Most office cleaners get completely ignored which is what i'd be more concerned about, I agree with the other poster, i'd be flattered that someone was thinking about me enough to put my photo on a Christmas tree. laugh it off for edited sake.

[fairclaire]

Everyone is different and what offends one person may be something that another person can laugh off.

 

Woody if what happened to you was offensive and has caused you distress then you have grounds to complain. Maybe it depends on the spirit/nature of how it was done. you haven't given too much info on that.....and you don't need to if you don't want to.

 

If you feel offended or picked on or that you have a grieveance then you are quite within your rights to compalin or pursue that.

 

Good luck woody in whatever you decide to pursue (or not)

[cheddar]

There's a big difference about sharing personal info and using a photograph;

 

How do you know they don't have her personal details? To get the photo and print it they would have to have gone in her file...

 

FFS, all people seem to want to do is find ways of [edit] each other. Try doing an apprenticeship or being in the forces then you'll know what humiliation is.

 

No one should have to suffer humiliation anywhere especially the workplace

 

Most office cleaners get completely ignored which is what i'd be more concerned about, I agree with the other poster, i'd be flattered that someone was thinking about me enough to put my photo on a Christmas tree. laugh it off for edited sake.

 

I am sure that most office cleaners aren't ingorned and lead very fulfilling lives! Not sure what comment means really! lol!

 

[GSMGuy]

And who said Woody was female??? I'd say it applies just the same to males??

 

Mike

[JonCris]

Despite what is said by some nothing but nothing justifies bullying in the workplace unless of course your the type that bullies

[buzby]

Perhaps not, but I was bullied at school and at work and yet I'm still here and happy. Bullies find fresh meat, lose interest or get a shock when challenged, so whilt it may never be an ideal world, it will never disappear so living in the real world you have to take responsibility for minimising the risk should it occur.

[Guest NATTIE]

Johno- post 5 seemed to sum up woodpecker's feelings of embarrassment caused by the issue in post 1 from my reading. If you see the second sentence in post 5. JMHO

[zootscoot]

Could I please remind people of the forum rules:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

 

I have already reminded people on the thread that if they have no positive advice to offer the starter of the thread, they should not be posting on the thread and already removed arguments to allow the thread to remain for the benefit of the user seeking advice.

 

Any further arguments will be deleted. As will earlier irrelevant posts and personal attacks.

[johno1066]

Johno- post 5 seemed to sum up woodpecker's feelings of embarrassment caused by the issue in post 1 from my reading. If you see the second sentence in post 5. JMHO

 

 

You make a good point but look at the context.

 

Clearly he is more concerned that his data may have been readily accessible by unauthorised persons, we do not know that it has for a company store photographs in a variety of ways, an intranet for example. He makes reference to the information commissioner as opposed to making a complaint of harassment for bullying. By implying that a joke has gone too far means that woodpecker accepts that it was a joke rather than bullying, but it has gone too far if his personal file has been violated.

 

JonCris's initial response is to tell woodpecker that the company concerned has violated his rights without first establishing whether that is the case. Joncris then proceeds to tell woodpecker to make a Police complaint, again without establishing the facts.

 

Woodpecker has already by his/her own admission accepted that the intitial purpose was that of a joke.

 

As a result, I merely pointed that people are too quick to go running to the lawyers when in fact a more amicable solution can be sought first.

[Guest NATTIE]

I think woodpecker has clearly stated that only security has access but that an unauthorised person has blown up a photo and put it on public view which is then the cause of huge embarrassment on post 5 as it was not removed. I would be interested in how woodpecker got on because clearly it wasn't just one day that the picture was up.

I think the joke bit is a phrase for example, something like, he's a joker can change with intonation from funny to annoyance.

A joke is something that both people laugh at but my reading of it implied something more serious. I am not sure if woodpecker has been back but it would be good to hear what actions were taken and the result of those actions. Maybe we will never know.

From post 1 woodpecker's rights have been violated by a third party as the information given suggested only one team at work had authority or rather access to the photos. I think the important words joncris used was cirumstances could be seen as this or that. His further post on 3 seems fairly balanced in assessment.

It is a pity Woodpecker is not here to clarify as I said before.

[johno1066]

I think woodpecker has clearly stated that only security has access but that an unauthorised person has blown up a photo and put it on public view which is then the cause of huge embarrassment on post 5 as it was not removed. I would be interested in how woodpecker got on because clearly it wasn't just one day that the picture was up.

I think the joke bit is a phrase for example, something like, he's a joker can change with intonation from funny to annoyance.

A joke is something that both people laugh at but my reading of it implied something more serious. I am not sure if woodpecker has been back but it would be good to hear what actions were taken and the result of those actions. Maybe we will never know.

From post 1 woodpecker's rights have been violated by a third party as the information given

It is a pity Woodpecker is not here to clarify as I said before.

suggested only one team at work had authority or rather access to the photos. I think the important words joncris used was cirumstances could be seen as this or that. His further post on 3 seems fairly balanced in assessment.

 

You don't know that and to be fair, neither would woodpecker. A cleaner would not always have access to a workstation. Companies routinely put staff members pictures on an intranet which can be viewed by those with access to a workstation. The question would be whether a photograph is considered personal information! An intranet is accessible by anyone with authorised access and in any company, that could be 80% of the workforce, therefore I should say in this case not.

 

Let's be honest about this, assuming the above to be correct, what would happen to woodpecker if he/she had/has made a complaint and in this case, a serious complaint, about a particular member of staff (ie security), or the company itself, only then to find that the photograph concerned was widely available? You state that the "joke" statement is a phrase" however it is one of significance for it sheds light on the motives behind woodpeckers initial post which in my view is quite clear.

[Guest NATTIE]

I would love woodpecker to be here so they could clarify the ifs and buts but I guess we will never know. I am taking info that woodpecker has posted so I have to imply rather than know definitively as I do not know what type of job they do, what the computer access is, etc, etc. I guess we both are interpreting the posts differently.

Have a good weekend mate, hopefully we will hear from woodpecker again and find out.

[JonCris]

johno I don't KNOW the facts anymore than you do.

We can only go with what we are told by the member & based on what they said & their employers failure to act (they see it as a joke which the OP clearly doesn't) I instead of critizising them I advised what legal recourse was open to them

[johno1066]

I would love woodpecker to be here so they could clarify the ifs and buts but I guess we will never know. I am taking info that woodpecker has posted so I have to imply rather than know definitively as I do not know what type of job they do, what the computer access is, etc, etc. I guess we both are interpreting the posts differently.

Have a good weekend mate, hopefully we will hear from woodpecker again and find out.

 

 

You too have a good weekend mate

[blacksheep1979]

The question really is - did the manager, once informed that the op wasn't happy with this, remove the photo? If so I don't see it as being taken too far if its a first offence. Its the kind of thing that happens all the time without people taking offense and if once offense was realised it was stopped then tbh that should be it - maybe an appology. As for data protection as people have mentioned the picture could be freely available on a staff intranet.

[patdavies]

The question would be whether a photograph is considered personal information! An intranet is accessible by anyone with authorised access and in any company, that could be 80% of the workforce, therefore I should say in this case not.

 

 

It matters not a jot how widely it is processed - it is still, legally speaking, personal data.