AMP under fire over employee surveillance

Staff at AMP have been given one week to sign contracts that enable their employer to carry out continuous video surveillance of them, including when working from home.

AMP wants its employees to sign agreements that gives the company the right to continuous camera surveillance, even when employees are working remotely.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Staff at AMP have been given one week to sign contracts that enable their employer to carry out continuous video surveillance of them, including when working from home, allow the company to sell their personal information and which could require them to ­undergo a medical examination by a doctor chosen by AMP.

Prominent workplace law ­expert Andrew Stewart said he had never seen a “more one-sided contract” in favour of an employer, highlighting how the contract also prevents an employee seeking ­advice about it from a lawyer or ­accountant without AMP’s permission, and requires terminated employees to assist AMP in any legal proceedings for up to seven years.

The Finance Sector Union said about 2000 AMP staff were issued new contracts on March 17, with a requirement to sign and return them by March 24, giving up rights such as overtime, penalties and ­annual leave loading in exchange for a “flat rate” of pay.

FSU national assistant secretary Nicole McPherson said staff were being “incentivised” to sign the “draconian” contracts with a $1000 share plan grant and, if they refused, would be ineligible for employee incentive programs.

FSU national assistant secretary Nicole McPherson says AMP staff should reject the contracts. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Sarah Matray

The contract, a copy of which has been obtained by The Australian, seeks employee consent so AMP “may carry out continuous, ongoing camera surveillance on or around the premises of AMP and in any other place where you work”, with one day’s notice. The contract says AMP may require an employee to be examined by a medical practitioner of its choice, either at the start or during a ­worker’s employment, “for the purpose of determining your fitness to work”.

It says AMP may obtain and use the results of the examinations “for any purpose” relating to the employee’s employment, and the medical practitioner can provide a report to AMP in relation to the employee’s fitness for work.

Ms McPherson said the union was shocked when it saw AMP’s proposed replacement contract and urged workers not to sign it.

“This is a draconian contract that features some very disturbing surveillance and medical privacy provisions,” she said, adding that AMP refused to bargain for a new enterprise agreement.

“It is shocking that any ­employer would propose the right to video monitor its workers in their own homes, force them to undergo a medical examination by the employer’s doctor of choice and give up their right to privacy of medical information.”

Professor Stewart, a professor of work and regulation at the Queensland University of Technology, said while there was a possible argument for some level of surveillance of employees working from home when using company equipment, “there’s no doubt that a purported power of surveillance that’s this broad, and with so few qualifications to it, is going too far”.

After being approached for comment by The Australian, an AMP spokesperson defended the clauses allowing surveillance of workers when working from home and said AMP employees working from home would not be subject to camera surveillance.

“(The surveillance clauses) are common in most contemporary employment contracts, including the right to monitor employee computer usage on employer-provided devices when they are ­working from home,” the spokesperson said.

“References to camera surveillance relate to CCTV cameras used in and around AMP premises, and we will not conduct camera surveillance on employees when they work from home.”

Professor Stewart said he had never before seen a clause preventing a worker talking to their lawyer or accountant about their contract without the employer’s permission, and he agreed with the FSU’s claim that another clause ­allowed AMP to sell employees’ personal information for profit.

The contract says AMP will ­obtain personal information about an employee, and gives the employee’s consent to AMP collecting the personal information; “using and disclosing this personal information to other parties for the purposes of conducting AMP’s business”; and transferring the “personal information outside Australia in the course of the group’s business activities”.

AMP chair Mike Hirst.

Professor Stewart said an “awful lot” of the contract had standard terms, and the balance of existing case law says an employer can reasonably require an ­employee to undertake a medical examination by a doctor of the company’s choice.

But he ­expressed concern about the ­accumulation of the contract’s “extreme” provisions in favour of AMP.

“It’s extreme,” he said. “I have not ever come across an employment contract that is quite so one-sided and goes so far in privileging the employer’s interests.”

Regarding the medical examination clauses, an AMP spokesperson said “as is standard in most contemporary employment contracts, it’s important for employers to have the ability to conduct medical examinations in circumstances where concerns are held about an employee’s fitness to perform work”.

“AMP is updating its employment contracts to reflect contemporary legal and industry standards, with no impact to employee roles, pay, leave and other benefits, such as our flexible working arrangements.”