Barclays backtracks in privacy row over worker surveillance project
Barclays Bank has withdrawn a system that monitored employees’ computers, tracking individual working patterns and how much time each day was spent on breaks. Details of the pilot project came to light after a Barclays whistle blower reported it to a newspaper.
The provider of the software to Barclays, Sapience says that its system tracks the computer activity of workers, including times when an employee goes offline. Initially the results of the monitoring were supplied to Barclays team managers in a collective and anonymised form. However, shortly before the whistle blower chose to break cover, it seems Barclays allowed managers to see the data relating to individuals.
The scheme has sparked a debate between employers and worker representative groups about the right to privacy at work.
Barclays responded to the story by stating that the motivation behind the project was to enhance both well-being and productivity. In particular, where a member of staff may be working too hard.
The TUC viewed the project somewhat differently, taking to social media to describe the action of the international bank as ‘Big Brother’ tactics that showed a disregard to hard working staff.
What are the rules about staff surveillance in the workplace?
Recording the patterns of workplace staff involves the processing of personal data – and therefore is protected under the Data Protection Act. The Act states that data should be used fairly, lawfully and transparently. It should be kept for no longer than necessary and be collected for a specified purpose.
This incident is less about whether Barclays breached any laws on data protection and more about trust between an employer and employee. In relation to employee monitoring, the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) goes so far as to advise employers of the potential negative effect of time and motion studies and whether less intrusive alternatives exist.
From a legal point of view, if the data gathered during any period of monitoring was to be used as evidence in any disciplinary action, then the likelihood of that should be made clear in the employer’s written policy or an employment tribunal may find the employer’s actions unfair.
In a broader context, there is a point here about not letting computers inform the actions of line managers where it is not necessary. Surveillance is not a replacement for good people management. For example, a quiet word regarding productivity / time away from a computer may be all that’s needed to bring an otherwise good employee back within the tolerances of breaks during the working day.
If you would like any advice relating to HR or employment law, contact Downs Solicitors to see how we can help.
More blog posts from this author
Recent news reports indicate that some employers are considering making it compulsory for their staff to have a Covid vaccination. Is this a lawful, or even sensible, move by employers?
Today marks some key changes to the Job Retention Scheme where companies that have been using the government's coronavirus furlough scheme are now having to contribute to workers' wages.
It is often said that the football industry is unlike any other. The money involved, the rewarding of past failures with new appointments and the self-indulgence of a minority of players.
More blog posts from this sector
As the UK eagerly tuned in to the most anticipated Budget for a generation, many were left wondering what the Chancellor’s traditional “rabbit out of a hat” might contain - especially as several big measures had been announced beforehand.
19 February 2021. The UK Supreme Court has issued its judgment in the highly anticipated case of Uber BV v Aslam, in which the key issue was the employment status of Uber drivers. The ruling reinforced the findings of earlier legal challenges (most recently the Court of Appeal in 2018), which found that Uber drivers are workers and not self-employed.
As new variants of the coronavirus are emerging and the pandemic continues, employees will continue to take sick leave due to testing positive for the coronavirus and/or being required to self-isolate.