Workplace surveillance is increasingly becoming a concern for ANMF members, with the Branch receiving a growing number of enquiries about the issue. For example, members have raised concerns about family members installing video equipment without consent in client’s rooms, in violation of members’ and clients’ privacy.
Although not recognised on WorkSafe’s list of psychosocial hazards, ANMF and other unions believe that intrusive workplace surveillance can pose a risk to workers’ psychological and physical health and safety.
With the growth in workplace surveillance part of a wider societal issue, the state government has launched an inquiry to examine the issue of surveillance in Victorian workplaces. The inquiry is examining:
- current workplace surveillance practices and the handling of associated data in Victoria
- regulation of workplace surveillance including the effectiveness of privacy laws
- potential privacy and data security risks posed by workplace surveillance
- impact of workplace surveillance on workers, their families and workplace relations
- best-practice workplace surveillance and privacy laws interstate and overseas.
In August, the Branch made a submission to the inquiry (officially known as the Legislative Assembly Economy and Infrastructure Committee Parliamentary Inquiry into Workplace Surveillance in Victoria).
While acknowledging that there can be legitimate reasons for employers to adopt temporary and/or continuous workplace surveillance monitoring – for example, security measures such as CCTV – our submission highlights the fact that unlike New South Wales and other jurisdictions, Victoria lacks specific workplace surveillance legislation.
‘The current legislation applicable in Victoria is insufficient and does not appropriately protect workers,’ we argue. Our outdated laws, which were developed before the widespread use of digital communications and technologies, mean that Victoria is being left behind in regard to protecting the personal privacy and psychological safety of workers.
The Branch has also endorsed the inquiry submission made by the Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC), which proposes new legislation, the Privacy in Working Life Act, to limit surveillance against workers.
What is workplace surveillance?
In addition to unauthorised recording of workers such as that mentioned above, other examples of workplace surveillance can include:
- monitoring the content of workers’ emails and files
- installing webcams or keystroke logging software on work computers
- recording workers’ phone calls
- tracking movements made by workers (for example, location trackers installed in work vehicles)
- monitoring workers’ social media use outside work hours or monitoring their personal social media accounts
- the use of retina, finger, hand or facial recognition scanning applications
- the use of CCTV and/or body-worn cameras.
In healthcare workplaces, in particular, unregulated surveillance can present significant ethical challenges and have broad-reaching physical and/or psychosocial consequences, particularly in sensitive clinical settings. These consequences can impact not just nurses, midwives and carers, but also their patients, residents and consumers.
Case study
ANMF (Vic Branch) was contacted by a member after her employer notified her of formal disciplinary proceedings against her. The allegations were in relation to misconduct and performance concerns regarding the management of a patient on the acute medical ward: a 65-year-old male with a complex medical history inclusive of acute behavioural deterioration and aggression secondary to dementia and delirium.
- The member was rostered in charge on the night shift.
- During the preceding shift, the patient had physically assaulted the nurse allocated to his care, resulting in significant injuries including her nose being fractured. The patient had also physically assaulted another patient on the ward.
- Due to the patient’s ill health and resultant behaviours, there was significant distress to other patients and staff.
- During the member’s night shift, there was a further physical assault to another patient; during this altercation the patient fell to the floor.
- A code grey was activated, and two security guards attended wearing body-worn cameras.
- Our member undertook a preliminary clinical assessment, underpinned by her knowledge of the situation and patient vulnerabilities, and her obligations associated with the decision-making framework.
- Due to the multitude of risks including the significant patient agitation and ongoing threats of aggression to both patients and staff, the member advised staff to delay approaching the patient again, until the arrival of the doctor to assess the patient and determine the safest care option.
The employer’s resultant disciplinary actions against the member were based off excerpts of the audio-visual footage captured by the security guard’s body-worn cameras. This did not protect the privacy of the patient nor consider the risk to others.
The excerpts from the footage were transcribed as evidence without the aforementioned context, and the footage was not provided to the member in the first instance.
The footage obtained by the body-worn cameras was captured by the security personal, who are contracted by external providers and are not employed by the health service. As such the footage is not privy to the health service privacy policies and processes.
This scenario demonstrates just one risk of unregulated surveillance ANMF members may be exposed to, in addition to the lack of privacy protections and patient dignity.
Next steps
In September the inquiry began public hearings, which are expected to continue until at least November. The VTHC was one of the first organisations to give evidence during the hearings. ANMF (Vic Branch) will do so soon.
A report is expected by May 2025.
