Hidden cameras


The use of covert cameras in the workplace has caused particular concerns for unions. As stated in the ICO Employment Code, covert surveillance should only be justified in exceptional circumstances, such as when suspecting “criminal activity or equivalent malpractice.”


Reflecting these principles, a union-agreed policy at a local authority gives examples of when covert CCTV monitoring would be justified and when it would not be:


• Covert monitoring would be justified where there was a reasonable suspicion that someone was stealing IT equipment from a store room. It would therefore be appropriate to install CCTV in this room.


• There is a suspicion that employees are making mobile phone calls during working hours. This contravenes council policy. However, covert monitoring close to employees’ desks to monitor this would not be justified, as this would be intrusive and disproportionate. 


Hidden cameras have been installed in schools. The teachers’ union NUT reported a case where a local authority, with the assistance of the police, covertly installed cameras in parts of a school where burglaries had been committed. This included a staffroom and an area near the girls’ changing rooms. When this was discovered by school staff, the union asked the local authority to cease recording private areas of the school during normal school hours on the basis that 24-hour monitoring could not be justified if previous burglaries in fact occurred at night and over weekends. The actions of the local authority were considered by the union to be disproportionate and in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 as well as Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The local authority agreed to restrict monitoring only to night-time and weekends.


Covert audio recording is also an issue. For example, the NUT complained to the ICO regarding a case involving a meeting between a teacher and manager which the manager recorded without the teacher’s knowledge or consent. 


The issue of covert recording of banking staff by undercover “mystery shoppers” is discussed in Chapter 5. 


Covert camera surveillance has also been aimed at trade union activity. In 2013, general union Unite challenged the use of covert cameras by the delivery and logistics multinational DHL at its retail distribution depot in East Kilbride.


Covert surveillance equipment had been discovered by Unite reps in the union’s on-site facilities area. When challenged by the union, the company said the cameras were being used as part of an investigation into an employee. 


Unite argued that DHL had used excessive means to deal with a standard disciplinary issue and said that it was “unacceptable for any employer to take covert action in the investigation of an employee”. The union also pointed out that DHL was in breach of the ICO Employment Code of Practice. The company eventually backed down, and agreed to bring security and surveillance operations in line with the Code.