Rate this!
Linda Tobey
Member - 9 posts
Our employer has installed two machines which they claim is to combat poor timekeeping. They work by scanning staff fingerprints. No consultation has taken place with the Unions. Managers say they can do this as long as Data Protection rules are observed but surely there are wider protections in play here? What is staff's legal right to refuse to be fingerprinted, as there is nothing in anyone's contracts to say that they have to comply.
Rate this!
Ethan Kelly-Wilson
Member - 2 posts
I would not say this is to combat poor timekeeping, it is to stop clock in fraud where colleagues clock each other in. As someone who has used these systems and implemented them, fingerprints are converted into codes. No one can access the fingerprints or download them. Most HR systems already contain enough information about people, that in the wrong hands could be used for identity fraud, I don't see a problem with this.
There is an implied term that employees must follow reasonable and legal instructions, I do not feel that you would need express consent from an employee to introduce such a system. That being said, one would hope that an employer would value their employees enough to consult them!
Rate this!
David Ransome
Member - 21 posts
Regrettably, whilst I agree that the use of fingerprint scanners can be relatively innocuous, it is the thin end of the wedge. Digital fingerprints are almost as good a record as actual fingerprints, and a scanner can be used to read them so they are open to abuse/misuse. Next step.... DNA check...?
Rate this!
David Sharp - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 134 posts
Biometrics are being for an increasing number of purposes, and are now becoming common in schools where they can work effectively as part of a cashless catering system - no need for school children to carry money, which can help to reduce bullying, and makes sure that what parents are paying for is lunch, rather than goodies on the way to or from school.
Rather like a clocking system, they can also be used to record attendance quickly and cost-effectively.
BECTA published guidance on the legal issues surrounding the use of biometrics in schools in 2007. More information here: http://schools.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=lv&catcode=ss_lv_saf_dp_03&rid=14160
The Data Protection Act 1998 plays an important role in controlling misuse of data in biometrics systems, and should ensure that data is gained for appropriate purposes, is processed properly and stored securely etc.
Many laptops already allow you to access them by scanning your fringerprint at the outset, and subsequently comparing the swiped image of your fingerprint each time you turn on your PC - a fairly innocuous and helpful use of the technology.
Rate this!
Linda Tobey
Member - 9 posts
I accept that the use of biometric information is becoming more common but our problem is regarding consent. If staff refuse ( and one has already refered to the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 Section 9) what legal standing does the employer have to compel individuals to comply?
Linda
Rate this!
Martin Brewer - Mills & Reeve
Online advisor - 92 posts
This doesn't seem to me to be any different from having your photograph taken with a digital camera, the image stored on computer and used for say an ID card. Many modern laptop computers can be logged on to by a fingerprint scan. The computer must therefore have a stored image of the user's fingerprint in order to make a comparison. I agree that the employer could abuse this information but let's be honest, your employer has yourt name, address, bank details, employmet history, education details, exam results, may know some mortgage details and so on. I don't think the odd fingerprint is going to make much difference!
There is no ' legal right' to refuse. You have an implied obligation to co-operate with your employer in their procedures and this seems to fall clearly in the scope of that.
Rate this!
David Sharp - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 134 posts
Linda - I think the excerpt from the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is as shown below. The important thing to note here is that this is all about actual or suspected criminal activity - the legislation is put there to allow the police to forcibly take fingerprints from people who may not want to give them (including, presumably, suspects who know they are guilty and that fingerprint evidence could implicate them).
This is not generally applicable to the use of biometric information for work purposes as you described it.
9. Taking fingerprints without consent (1) Section 61 of the 1984 Act (fingerprinting) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (3) and (4) (taking of fingerprints without appropriate consent) there is substituted—
“(3) The fingerprints of a person detained at a police station may be taken without the appropriate consent if—
(a) he is detained in consequence of his arrest for a recordable offence; and
(b) he has not had his fingerprints taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police.
(4) The fingerprints of a person detained at a police station may be taken without the appropriate consent if—
(a) he has been charged with a recordable offence or informed that he will be reported for such an offence; and
(b) he has not had his fingerprints taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police.”
(3) In subsection (3A) (disregard of incomplete or unsatisfactory fingerprints) for the words from the beginning to “subsection (3) above” there is substituted “Where a person mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) or (4) has already had his fingerprints taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police”.
(4) In subsection (5) (authorisation to be given or confirmed in writing) for “subsection (3)(a) or (4A)” there is substituted “subsection (4A)”.
(5) In subsection (7) (reasons for taking of fingerprints without consent) for “subsection (3) or (6)” there is substituted “subsection (3), (4) or (6)”.
0 (0)
