The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service (JACS)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the review of CCTV camera surveillance, particularly in respect of the rights of employees. While we do not maintain specific data on this matter, I am pleased to comment as below.
Comment:
Our understanding is that CCTV is used overtly fairly extensively by employers, in particular in hotels, shops, warehouse premises and (more recently) on buses. No doubt CCTV is also used extensively by utility companies and many other sectors of industry.
We are aware of CCTV recordings being used regularly in providing evidence as part of investigations into alleged disciplinary offences (we certainly see a dozen or more instances of this each year). It is not unusual that the request for CCTV footage to be viewed originates from the staff member who is being investigated (to provide evidence that he/she did not act improperly) as well as by the employer. In other words CCTV footage has been used to the benefit of employees as well as employers. We have not heard of instances where an employer has unreasonably refused to allow an employee access to CCTV footage when access may be pertinent to that employee.
JACS has received very few complaints/comments from employees about the use of CCTV with the exception of employees of the bus operator (see comments below). In fact the only other complaints brought to JACS' attention have been:
- The inappropriate positioning of CCTV in a (female) staff changing room in a retail establishment, allegedly to discover whether "staff shoplifting" was occurring, and
- The monitoring of the frequency with which an employee allegedly used toilet facilities in an industrial environment.
In both cases the offending CCTV monitor was quickly removed
- following JACS intervention by contacting the UK head office of the retailer and
- following an employee's threat to seek advice from the Data Protection department.
In recent months we have received comments (rather than complaints) from bus drivers who have expressed concerns about their working conditions and have included their view of "big brother" behaviour by their employer i.e. the use of CCTV in buses and at the depot.
However, we accept the bus operator's response that buses are monitored in this way to protect its passengers and its staff from assault or other abuse, as well as protecting the employer's property, including cash. This issue has been commented upon in the press by employee representatives and the bus operator.
In conclusion, JACS has no reason to be concerned that the overt use of CCTV is regarded as unreasonable by the large majority of employees.
David Witherington