use of CCTV images in a disciplinary case

One of my last contractors changed their time clocks to fingerprint operated ones to get over this very issue.

Hello

As a data controller for the purpose of the DPA the rules do allow for CCTV to be used for the management of a building and for the detection of criminal activity, but you have to register the system for that purpose and put up signs stating what the system is to be used for.
You cannot keep data for longer than is needed.
RIPA is really intended to control the authorities use of surveillance as they cannot be trusted in any way to act fairly.
Covert surveillance is a a last resort and must be accurate and generally telling the staff that it will be taking place is usually enough, but the information you gather MUST BE accurate.

Regards

Barry L

I believe that your employees who are subject of the disciplinary are the holders of the recorded images that you have and you may be infringing the data protection act by using them in such a manner.?

Will, It must be communicated to the staff involved the purpose of their use. Otherwise they it be deemed as unlawful.

Is this true Martin? Surely cameras can be used for safety purposes such as on the back of bin lorries. What will happen when (and it will be when, not if) road cars are fitted routinely with cameras, for parking assistance for instance?

Wayne, Go to the information commissioners office website (jsut google it). Read the content carefully, you can only use CCTV for the purpose of detecting a criminal offence and even then it must be strictly controlled.

Sorry, I just looked at the rip act and i couldnt see anything with reference to cameras for monitoring.

Can you point me in the direction of the statement that refers to this of the dpa?

I dont want to be watched especially if the company is breaking the law.

Both DPA and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
Staff cannot sign away the right as any system used for directed surveillance must be registered and having had discussions withthe depute commmissioner it would not be granted for such trivia.

The company I work for has set up an internal camera system for the use of monitoring machine performance and breakdown causes.

This system captures the operators at work and has been used to help with factual evidence in accused one to one assault aligations to confirm or deny the event.

Are yo saying that the company is in breach of the DPA?

If so do we need to consult the legalities of the system in place or the fact that no staff have signed an agreement to allow themselves to be filmed daily?

Alex and Martin are right, so please listen to them.

On a personal note my Sister had a CCTV camera fitted on her ex-property, from which she could see the gate of her house, on the wall next to the gate was a post box, which was also clearly visible on the CCTV.
She had a visit from the community police officer after someone had raised concerns that they could be recorded at the post box, and he advised that she get legal advice urgently.
I'm not sure what official persons came to see her, but think it was the local authority, this ended with her having the system moved at considerable cost in order that it could only view the path and her front door, and not the general public.
I believe she could have been fined/charged, but when 'they' came back and saw that she had moved the system and had signage put up, they didn't want to pursue the case any longer.

I know you might not consider this relevant, but the legalities of having CCTV fitted are not as easy as you may at first think, which most definitely applies to the workplace.

Having dealt with schools myself, I know the Bursars multi-tasking role can be very difficult, and time is never on your side, but make sure you spend time ensuring that all boxes are ticked in this case, another 'box' you may need to be more aware of is Child Protection, and how CCTV might be affected by it.

All the best
Phil

You are also in breach of the DPA 1998 and this is very serious, covert monitoring of employees could put you in deep trouble.

Now that you have declared this on a public forum, if you pursue this allegation you'll find yourself and your organsation standing in the dock instead.

All employees must be made aware of CCTV use and its limitations, signs must be displayed and retention, storage and retrieval must be well controlled.

I would stop what you are doing right now, regardless of your perceptions. You've gone about it all the wrong way.

You are in dangerous territory as RIPA almost certainly applies, under which any directed surveillance, which this clearly is, MUST be controlled by the regulations. The operator of the surveillance regime must have a written system of operation AND register with the Information Commisioner. You WILL NOT get such permission. Primarily because RIPA is designed for the purposes of detecting crime, preventing disorder, public safety, protecting public health, or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
You must also appoint a controller to ensure that all such directed surveillance is authorised and is legitimate but that it is also any intrusion is commensurate with any "wrong-doing" it is trying to expose. In this you are way over the top.

I agree totally with you Will. In case of an evacuation ,the employer must account for all the employees that are present and that would unnecessarily take much of the time of the wardens, without mentioning the risks.

It is probably not worth pushing the matter due to the lack of evidence. Let the paties involved know you are not pursuing it on this occasion for whatever reason you chose to use. It will serve as a warning and the practice will cease. You can then address the various shortcomings of your systems in case things happen again.

I'm not sure of the legal ins and outs so don't take my answer as gospel at all but if the cctv cameras are up for security reasons only, make this a security matter. Clocking in and out isn't just to see when people arrive for work or when they leave - it could be used to know who is in the building at any particular time. If someone has been clocked in without actually being in the building and a fire breaks out, a fire crew could put their lives at risk looking for a missing person who actually isn't even there.

No signs in the workplace at that point in time. Since our renovation there is a window sign on a back door indicating that the place has CCTV security. While I cans see similarities in the times each suspected person has clocked in eg., 0845 and 0853, that could be explained easily away by the two arriving at the clock machine legitimately at those times. Howeve, it doesn't explan whi the third individual, to whom I suspect is the key to all of this, is the person who is clocking himself in at say 0845 and comming back later at 0853 to clock his mate in. The CCTV times certainly show him on the nearby corridor at around 0853 on too many frequent occasions. This third individaul when interviewed has supplied several reasons why he would be seen in this area.

My point here coleagues is the actual use of CCTV evidence. I am pretty certain that I am sailing close to the wind if I am forced to show the CCTV evidence to the employees, however, taking and collating time data from the CCTV would not be a problem would it?

If you suspect that the employee was at another place ,you must be in a position to prove that in fact he was not there and would be better if you can show evidence of him being at another location at that specific time the clocking is done. If you rely on the time shown by the recordings , it should be a synchronised clock.

Have you got the signs up? and these images lead you to form an opinion that fits in with your assertions.

Is this your only proof.

Barry L

As a bursar in a secondary school, I suspect two technician employees are misusing the workplace clock machine.

I suspect that one technician is probably clocking in his colleague - even though this specific invidual is not (yet) on the workplace premises.

There are no security cameras covering the actual location of the clock machine which is also close to an exit door, however, there are two cameras on a nearby corridor.

I have carried out a formal investigation resulting in an interview to establish the facts. I have also checked the relevant security camera images going back over several weeks to obtain evidence to back my ascertions.

While none of the camera imgaes actually show any colleague misusing the clock machine, they both show one of the two employees making several trips in the area of the clock machine.

As part of the interview with both employees I have been shown time data that I have retrieved from the cameras and correlated these with the clock machine data which would suggest that there are reasonble grounds for a possible disciplinary action.

During the interview both employees have insisted that I was wrong to both view and/or use images from the CCTV for any other reason other than their main use of monitoting the safety of students and staff within the workplace. Our CCTV policy is very old and only mentions use of the cameras for Child protection and staff security issues. The individual who I suspect is clocking in his colleague also ascerts that he was involved in other activities which would be reasonable for a person to be within the clock machine area.

So my questions are as follows. First, what are my/employers legal rights to use camera image data under such circumstances. Secondly, can I make a case of defrauding the workplace of time ie., a workplace employee saying that he was on the premises when I suspect that he was not!