A CIVIL engineering firm which used a tracking device to monitor an employee without his knowledge has been formally reprimanded by the Island’s data protection agency.
Brenwal Ltd installed the tracker on a work-owned vehicle between 7.30am and 4pm for one month following concerns about the employee’s use of time.
According to the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner, the member of staff was “completely unaware” of the device or the potential implications of the data being collected which could have been used against him in disciplinary proceedings.
A statement released by the JOIC said: “Whilst Brenwal had sufficient cause to monitor the employee’s activity and use of the work-owned vehicle, the circumstances in this case were not sufficient to justify covert recording and outweigh the employee’s right to privacy.
“Nowhere in any of the employer’s documentation was any indication given that employees’ use of the work vehicle (or their movements more generally) might be subject to surveillance of any kind.”
The employee left his job after discovering he had been monitored.
Brenwal was deemed to have shown an “insufficient appreciation” of the significance of its breach, but significant credit was given to the firm due to early admission of fault, full co-operation with the investigation and because the issue only came to light because the company had raised it with the JOIC.
The firm also updated its policies and procedures during the course of the investigation.
The statement from the JOIC continued: “The authority considered whether it would have been appropriate to issue a financial penalty by way of an administrative fine, but in light of information provided to it, decided that an administrative fine would be disproportionate in the circumstances.”
It added that a “public statement was to be preferred, such acting as a sufficient rebuke in respect of Brenwal’s behaviour and such serving as a warning to other data controllers who may be tempted to act in a similar way”.
The JOIC added that organisations could monitor staff members “so long as this can be justified” and any tracking is “reasonable, proportionate and not excessive”.
It added that “save for in extreme circumstances” organisations should make staff aware of the type of monitoring that is taking place, “including where and in what circumstances there may be potential for any covert monitoring”.
The JOIC’s statement continued: “This is because staff are entitled to know what information is being collected about them and how it could impact on them. For example, if trackers are placed on work vehicles, staff need to know that the trackers are in place and what is being measured (eg routes, hours of use) and why.”
