Taking Photos at work for evidence

brian ireland

Is it illegal to take photos at work if you are trying to prove a point.
For instance,
You leave instruction for an area to be cleaned before the shop closes. Next morning you start work and the area is not cleaned properly. If you take a photo to use to take disciplinary action, is this illegal. I am not saying i would need to take disciplinary action next day but if a pattern was beginning to form with an individual was not listening would be ok to use photos to make the point.

I was told it was against the data protection act.

not even wrong

What is Personal Data?

“personal data” means data relating to a living individual who is or can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information that is in, or is likely to come into, the possession of the data controller;

A similar definition is contained in the EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC):
“personal data” shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘Data Subject’); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity.

The definition is – deliberately - a very broad one. In principle, it covers any information that relates to an identifiable, living individual. However, it needs to be borne in mind that data may become personal from information that could likely come into the possession of a data controller.

There are different ways in which an individual can be considered ‘identifiable’. A person’s full name is an obvious likely identifier. But a person can also be identifiable from other information, including a combination of identification elements such as physical characteristics, pseudonyms occupation, address etc.

A mere photograph of a messy shop floor does not contain anything that identifies or could identify an individual person (unless there's some sort of name plate or whatever visible, or if you save them with a filename that identifies the individual). It's arguable that you have a legitimate reason to collect this data anyway, even if it did identify the individual.

Paulw

Maybe there's a company policy that prohibits the taking of photos in the workplace.

I can't see any way it would be against the Data Protection Act.

Either way, I can't see how it would be illegal in any way.

slimjimmc

brian ireland wrote: »

Is it illegal to take photos at work if you are trying to prove a point.
For instance,
You leave instruction for an area to be cleaned before the shop closes. Next morning you start work and the area is not cleaned properly. If you take a photo to use to take disciplinary action, is this illegal. I am not saying i would need to take disciplinary action next day but if a pattern was beginning to form with an individual was not listening would be ok to use photos to make the point.

I was told it was against the data protection act.

I think who ever told you that was confusing still photography with video/time-lapse recording. There can be issues with using CCTV to monitor employees without first making them aware they are being monitored.

brian ireland

Ok thanks for your answers.
Can I put the second and final scenario to you
Say someone was supposed to put some food back into the fridge after the shift but it was easier for them to put it in the bin. If you took a photo of the waste next day to used to confront them, would that be ok.

I think it is ok by the way but I was told it was illegal. Sorry for asking the same question twice but i am just making sure you understand what I mean.

Paulw

brian ireland wrote: »

I think it is ok by they way but I was told it was illegal.

Illegal how? What law would you be breaking?

I can't see how the taking of a photo would be illegal here, but the use of a photo may be different.

slimjimmc

Just wondering who is giving you this advice: a manager, union rep or a professional legal advisor? I'm just a lay person so I can't rule out there being something in what they say. It might help if your advisor could explain to you with appropriate references as to why they consider it illegal.

rocksteady36

Of course there would be legal issues here. Like who else has access to this data and how long its stored for, the reputational damage of photos can be serious, and open to serious manipulation.....I would sue the fk out of you if you took photos and put them on file, if I knew you were doing this I would do the same to you, I would set up hidden cameras on you..Or take photos of you..Its a dangerous game to play..Also if other staff heard you were doing it, there would be zero trust and lots of fear and resentment, an unhealthy place to work..Your really opening up pandoras box..Although others think its ok, you really need to rethink your strategy, the verbal warning system etc is in place for a reason. It covers the employer and gives enough time etc for the employee to remedy issues..


Next you will have video cameras and voice activated recorders..

If he is not cleaning then give him a warning, and go through the process.

The more I think of this the more it piss's me off..Who are you trying to prove the point to, if its not done properly then he knows this too, check who trained him..If he is definitely trained then give him a warning.

seamus

rocksteady36 wrote: »

Why do you need to take pictures. Sounds a bit Orwellian to me..

Because without pictures, it's one person's word against anothers.

If later complications arose due the employee's dismissal you would be relying on memory to say, "Well I came in and the floor was dirty". Instead with a picture, you can stick it on the table and say, "Here's how the floor looked when I came in".

There's no reason why taking the pictures themselves is illegal. As Paulw says, the use of the photo is actually more important. Keeping a record of how the workplace looks is not a problem.

In this case, you may get better results through the simple threat of photography. The Observer Effect is known phenomenon whereby a person will adjust their actions when they know they're being watched. In a business environment, a worker who is aware that they're being monitored will perform more efficiently.

Pull the guy in for a meeting, inform him that you're not pleased with his work, and that you will be monitoring his work closely, including taking photographs. Don't take photographs for the first week and see how you get on

rocksteady36

seamus wrote: »

Because without pictures, it's one person's word against anothers.

If later complications arose due the employee's dismissal you would be relying on memory to say, "Well I came in and the floor was dirty". Instead with a picture, you can stick it on the table and say, "Here's how the floor looked when I came in".

There's no reason why taking the pictures themselves is illegal. As Paulw says, the use of the photo is actually more important. Keeping a record of how the workplace looks is not a problem.

In this case, you may get better results through the simple threat of photography. The Observer Effect is known phenomenon whereby a person will adjust their actions when they know they're being watched. In a business environment, a worker who is aware that they're being monitored will perform more efficiently.

Pull the guy in for a meeting, inform him that you're not pleased with his work, and that you will be monitoring his work closely, including taking photographs. Don't take photographs for the first week and see how you get on

May be you would have a point for sub contracting a company to build a structure like an office block.

But doing this with staff in my opinion is wrong on many levels.

It builds resentment, mistrust and loyalty etc goes out the window.

So if that the type of atmosphere and culture you want then go this route..

If you give someone a warning, then they contest the warning then you can show him the floor...There will be witnesses to the work completed.

To be honest I don't clean floors and hope I won't have to for money..

But I feel that the recession brings the worst out of employers..This type of strategy does not surprise me. Employers want to be able to hire and fire at will nowadays, taking photos just helps them do it faster with more confidence..

I do agree that the threat of taking photos works better than taking them...You can find this strategy in the CIA handbook for torture..The threat of torture is more effective than the actual torture itself..

Your basically saying staff should work under this state of fear of being watched like that..

I think the best strategy is to find out if its legal to take picture or not, then if its legal take them..Just don't tell anyone..Then go through the process of the verbal warning, written warning..etc If he comes back after being fired with a solicitor and you end up in court, you can legally produce the photos.

This way you don't alienate staff, and they don't ahve to worry about big brother, which is too unhealthy an environment to work in.

Also the staff will respect you for being strong and firing the guy after going through the proceedures, that are no oubt laid out in your contracts...Thats probably where your problem will lie, in the contracts...Did the staff agree to pictures being taking in the contract.

seamus

rocksteady36 wrote: »

If you give someone a warning, then they contest the warning then you can show him the floor...There will be witnesses to the work completed.

Or there may not be. If the guy comes in at 4 o'clock every day (for example) to do the cleaning, and the manager arrives in at 8am, then between the time the manager sees it and the time the employee gets in, the floor is naturally going to need to be cleaned again.

If he really was that hungry to fire him, it would be done already. The OP appears to be looking for ways to reasonably discipline this employee, and he would be a fool not to consider ways of gathering evidence of the employee's poor performance.

"I don't think this floor is clean" is not evidence, and before you know it the manager is up in front of a board, accused of setting unrealistic standards and bullying the cleaning staff.

Paulw

rocksteady36 wrote: »

This type of strategy does not surprise me. Employers want to be able to hire and fire at will nowadays, taking photos just helps them do it faster with more confidence..

The OP's question was about the legality. You haven't addressed that at all.

Simply speaking, I can't see anything that the OP is proposing, which is illegal. While you may not like it, it is not illegal.

rocksteady36

Paulw wrote: »

The OP's question was about the legality. You haven't addressed that at all.

Simply speaking, I can't see anything that the OP is proposing, which is illegal. While you may not like it, it is not illegal.

I did, it might be a contract issue...Also I said there ma be legal issue with how you store the data, and who has access to it. Also how it is used in the future, how its destroyed...etc

But you are saying its not illegal, on what basis are you saying that, just to be clear..seeing as this is the legal forum

Paulw

While there may be company policies which allow or forbid photography in the workplace, while there may also be data protection issues on the storage/use of the images taken, I am not aware of any law which prohibits the taking of the photo itself.

So, in that respect, photography isn't illegal.

seamus

rocksteady36 wrote: »

I did, it might be a contract issue...Also I said there ma be legal issue with how you store the data, and who has access to it. Also how it is used in the future, how its destroyed...etc

Such limitations only apply to data identified under the data protection act. Pictures of a floor would not be covered in this case as they do not contain any identifying information nor do they relate to any individual (in and of themselves). When combined with other information, naturally they form part of a portfolio which then falls under the DPA.

Storing the data on a camera in this case would be more than adequate and the person would be entitled to distribute these photos without any accompanying information to whomever they wished.

Taking and holding the photos would not in isolation be covered by the DPA.

But you are saying its not illegal, on what basis are you saying that, just to be clear..seeing as this is the legal forum

Because in life, something is usually legal unless it can be shown otherwise. In the absence of any evidence to show that it's illegal, it can be assumed to be legal.

rocksteady36

[QUOTE=Because in life, something is usually legal unless it can be shown otherwise. In the absence of any evidence to show that it's illegal, it can be assumed to be legal.[/QUOTE]

Yes that seems to be true, I just got clamped on private property...Its neither legal nor illegal becasue there are no laws governing it..

Also I did hear that filming staff is not illegal...how do you make these laws without a court case lol

Jo King

Is there any law that says cycling a bicycle is legal? is there law that says wearing nylon tights is legal? is there any law that says cycling a bicycle while wearing nylon tights is legal?

rocksteady36

Jo King wrote: »

Is there any law that says cycling a bicycle is legal? is there law that says wearing nylon tights is legal? is there any law that says cycling a bicycle while wearing nylon tights is legal?

Yes, the Cycling a Bicycle Wearing Nylon Act 1901

amended in 2011 for Driving a Motor Vehicle Wearing a Nylon Act 2001

barman linen

rocksteady36 wrote: »

I did, it might be a contract issue...Also I said there ma be legal issue with how you store the data, and who has access to it. Also how it is used in the future, how its destroyed..

Do employers keep files ( personnel) on floors.... ?