Aussie firm defends remote work surveillance claims
Two workers claim they were sacked after complaining about surveillance, as their former employer insists it was “lawful and justified”.
An Australian company will “strenuously defend” cases brought against it by ex-employees who claim they were sacked after complaining about surveillance.
Safetrac, a Melbourne-based online compliance training company, is facing allegations it listened to staff via software on their laptops while they worked at home.
The Australian Financial Review reports Victoria Police were “investigating if any criminal offences have occurred” after receiving a report on July 23.
It was reported that two employees were sacked in July after complaining to the company over alleged breaches of privacy. They have lodged unlawful dismissal claims.
One termination letter, cited by the Financial Review, claim the surveillance was “lawful, appropriate and justified” adding the surveillance program found one staffer was “idle for approximately 50% of her working day”.
The company claimed that their employment contracts include acceptance of its surveillance policy, which says that audio can be recorded during the course of employement.
Current and former employees told the newspaper they did not agree to have their laptop microphones switched on for up to 10 hours per day, recording Teams meetings and potentially private conversations near their computers.
In a statement to news.com.au a spokesperson for Safetrac said the “matters are being strenuously defended, and we remain confident that our practices are compliant with the law”.
The topic of workplace surveillance in the remote work era has sparked debate about work-life boundaries and the level of monitoring staff should expect.
‘Productivity paranoia’
A term “productivity paranoia” has been coined to describe managers’ concerns about the amount of work employees are doing while not in the office.
Microsoft published a study in 2022 which found 87 per cent of workers believed they were productive but 85 per cent of bosses said hybrid work made them less confident that was the case.
When looking purely at Australian bosses, the figure was 90 per cent.
Speaking generally. Peter Holland, a professor in human resources management at Swinburne University, said Australian companies had been big users of “bossware” surveillance tools since the pandemic.
But he said differing state laws and fast-moving technology had created uncertainty about where the boundaries lie.
“The technology is advancing so much it can pick up so much with us all working hybrid, working at home,” Professor Holland said.
He said it was unclear if that type of monitoring could keep workers honest or potentially have the reverse effect.
“Underperformance isn’t solved by everybody being surveilled,” he said.
“And the key with this is, if you find out has happened to you or to me, you break that trust relationship between the employer and the employee.”
What’s the law?
According to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), the Privacy Act “doesn’t specifically cover surveillance in the workplace”.
“However, an employer who conducts surveillance or monitors their staff must follow any relevant Australian, state or territory laws. This includes laws applying to the monitoring and recording of telephone conversations,” it says.
The OAIC said it “may be reasonable for an employer to monitor some activities to ensure staff are doing their work and using resources appropriately”.
“If your employer monitors staff use of email, internet and other computer resources, and they’ve told you about the monitoring, this would generally be allowed,” its website states.
Safetrac said in a letter it “turned on” the Teramind monitoring software for a “legitimate business purpose” as part of performance management for one staffer, the Financial Review reports.
“Safetrac remains confident that its practices were entirely lawful, appropriate, and justified,” its letter said.
Laws around personal surveillance differ across the state and territories.
In Victoria it can be an offence to intercept or listen to calls made on the telecommunications network, and to record or listen private conversations.
Professor Holland said from a remote work perspective, there needed to be uniform laws that let both workers and employers know where they stood.
“We all know there are bludgers and people who don’t work, but that’s been around even when we all turned up for work, it used to be called ‘presenteeism’,” he said.
“Where people would turn up and basically and have their computer on when no one was around to be booking their holidays and stuff like that.
“So we’re not looking at anything new here. It’s just the invasive level is in the home, and that boundary is now a liquid boundary.”
Originally published as Aussie firm defends remote work surveillance claims
