Privacy In The Workplace: Is It Being Compromised?

Video surveillance privacy practices adopted by any company - no matter how sanitized they are - will always leave some employees dissatisfied. There have been numerous lawsuits filed by employees against employers, with cases ranging from covert use of cameras in rest rooms to eavesdropping at work cubicles and corridors. Hence, companies have to juggle and balance video surveillance vs. privacy of the employees and the law of the land.

In 1928, a Supreme Court Justice wrote that the American people's most valued right is the “right to be left alone”. This has been the benchmark law when it comes to privacy. However, when employers hire employees, they make them agree to the company's video surveillance, drug testing, and employee-tracking policies, all of which strip the employees of their right to privacy.

There are, of course, laws with regard to privacy. The privacy laws concerning video surveillance are discussed below.

Video surveillance privacy practices and the law

The United States Constitution has no specific privacy provision. It confers the right of privacy protection to citizens in cases when local, state, or federal government violates such privacy, but does not cover private companies. However, many court decisions have recognized an implied right to privacy.

Apart from the Constitution, small companies are subject to laws and rulings handed down by the state judges. A Colorado court ruling has laid down four forms in which privacy can be invaded. Three of these rules pertain to employers, and these are:

• Unreasonable disclosure of personal facts: An employer can disclose only those facts about his employee so much as they relate to his wrongdoing. If he discloses any fact that is highly offensive to the employee's personal life, then such disclosures will amount to invasion of privacy.
• Unreasonable intrusion into private matters: If an employer intrudes into the private and secluded life of an employee who is a reasonable person then such an intrusion can be ruled as invasion of privacy.
• Unreasonable publicity: If an employer reveals publicly any information about the employee in such a way that it embarrasses the employee and portrays him in a false light in the public, then such public disclosures can be deemed as invasion of privacy.

Lawyers can interpret constitutional provisions in hundreds of ways. Backed by court decisions they can twist the circumstances to fit around their plea. So, it is best for employers to lay down the company's video surveillance policy (along with other privacy-invading policies) in black and white and communicate it effectively to its employees.

How federal law protects privacy rights in the workplace

Federal law respects a worker's right to privacy in the workplace, and it has a general set of Don'ts. Here are some of the stellar points:

• Any surveillance of union activity is prohibited under federal law. It might be tempting for an employer to eavesdrop on union meetings, but it could land him in a whole lot of trouble.
• When employees are members of a union, then before implementing any video surveillance system at the workplace, employers should consult their lawyers if they need to bargain with the union over the issue.
• If the video surveillance system picks up any conversation between employees that expresses dissatisfaction with the management or work conditions, then federal law prohibits the management to take any retaliatory measures against the employees concerned. This holds good even if there is no workers' union in existence.
• If an employer has gathered information about some employees who have committed some kind of mischief at the workplace, then too, the employer has to be careful about what he reveals publicly. Else, the employer might face an “invasion of privacy” lawsuit.

Privacy issues on video surveillance: Employer and employee coordination

Any company will run smoothly if the working relations between the management and the employees are good. Managements and employees are humans too and they need to exist in harmony.

Sure, there does exist a case for video surveillance - covert or overt - but it can be implemented in such a manner that everyone feels good about the whole deal. A harmonious working relationship is created when employees understand the need of a surveillance system. The management also gets a good night's sleep because they know that the employees know about the surveillance system and they are not too disturbed about it. Ultimately, all this harmony and well-being leads to the development of mutual trust, which goes a long way in increasing productivity and profitability.It would be best if employers and employees sat down together and developed the video surveillance policy together. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has drafted a model statute on electronic monitoring at the workplace. Here it is, ad verbatim:

• Employers must notify employees and applicants of electronic monitoring policies.
• Prior to monitoring, employers must provide a visual or aural signal to employees and any customers.
• Employers must provide employee access to all data obtained by electronic monitoring.
• Employees have the right to a grievance procedure to dispute inaccurate or misleading data.
• Employers are prohibited from using electronic monitoring to obtain data that is not relevant to work performance.
• Areas subject to monitoring are restricted and cannot include rest rooms, locker rooms, and lounges
• All data collected is to be of limited use and cannot be used for an employee evaluation or to introduce disciplinary actions against an employee.
• Employers are prohibited from disclosing personal data without prior employee consent.

If the management respects the right to privacy of the employees, who in turn understand the employer's need for video surveillance, then, voila, you have in place a video surveillance policy that makes everyone happy.