CCTV used for staff timekeepinng, legal?

[anonymous (for legal reasons).]

Here's something I'm curious about.

Can an employer legally accuse a member of staff of being late for work if
they were in the buiding but not at their desks and how far after start
time is mimimum for it to qualify as 'late' and can CCTV be legally used to
monitor staff arrival times?

Today my whole department at work were called into a meeting and told by our
manager to improve time keeping, the reason being that even though we all
usually arrive in the company between 8:30am and 8.50am and our work start
time is 9.00am we use the spare time before we start to have a tea-break in
the staff canteen and don't get to our desks until just after 9.00am (in my
case I was told off for not arriving at my desk until 9.02am just once in
the past week that it's been monitored - others were 1 minute late twice or
up to 5 minutes late once).

The way our time-keeping is being monitored is that our workplace (a
computer repair workshop) is downstairs and the canteen is upstairs and the
company director is watching us on a CCTV camera on the stairs which is one
of the things I would like to query the legality of (hence reason for
posting here) - can a camera installed for security be used for checking on
staff timekeeping (Bearing in mind the cameras aren't linked to an accurate
time-source and I've been informed they are currently showing a time 1 and
a half minutes out).

I also thoought the definition of timekeeping in relation to work times
meant being in the building so 'available to work' rather than having to be
at a specific workbench at the start time.

Things could get interesting as we're sometimes asked to work unpaid
overtime of up to an hour if some hardware is needed to be sent out to a
customer urgently and as my supervisor has also been criticized for the
same timekeeping problem he's advised us to just down tools at our normal
5.30pm finish time no matter how urgent the current repair job is.

It's not just our department - one of the office staff upstairs was called
up for being late and got the cctv recording checked - he was 45 seconds
late.


What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over company
staff?

[TAW]

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
Here's something I'm curious about.
Can an employer legally accuse a member of staff of being late for work if
they were in the buiding but not at their desks and how far after start
time is mimimum for it to qualify as 'late' and can CCTV be legally used to
monitor staff arrival times?

Is it any different to the MD standing on the stairs and watching you
start work late?

Late is late wether 2 mins or 2 hours, wether wached by CCTV or
slavedriving management.

Pull your finger out and work harder.

[L***@am2ma.eu]

Post by TAW
Late is late wether 2 mins or 2 hours, wether wached by CCTV or
slavedriving management.
Pull your finger out and work harder.

It would be poor management that complained about the odd min or two.
But late for two hours and you would know about it.
I would class the odd min as give and take.

[Harry The Horse]

Post by TAW
Late is late wether 2 mins or 2 hours, wether wached by CCTV or
slavedriving management.

Self evidently there are degrees of lateness. Depending on the job, 2
minutes late may or may not be significant. Look at the other way around,
if an employee complained about having to do 2 minutes extra work beyond his
contract of employment, I bet you would be attacking him for being a
'workshy jobsworth'.

[Cynic]

Post by TAW

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
Here's something I'm curious about.
Can an employer legally accuse a member of staff of being late for work if
they were in the buiding but not at their desks and how far after start
time is mimimum for it to qualify as 'late' and can CCTV be legally used to
monitor staff arrival times?

Is it any different to the MD standing on the stairs and watching you
start work late?
Late is late wether 2 mins or 2 hours, wether wached by CCTV or
slavedriving management.
Pull your finger out and work harder.

Bollocks. It's swings & roundabouts. The OP has stated that the
staff do unpaid overtime when required.

[Tom]

anonymous (for legal reasons). wrote...

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
Here's something I'm curious about.
Can an employer legally accuse a member of staff of being late for work if
they were in the buiding but not at their desks and how far after start
time is mimimum for it to qualify as 'late' and can CCTV be legally used to
monitor staff arrival times?
Today my whole department at work were called into a meeting and told by our
manager to improve time keeping, the reason being that even though we all
usually arrive in the company between 8:30am and 8.50am and our work start
time is 9.00am we use the spare time before we start to have a tea-break in
the staff canteen and don't get to our desks until just after 9.00am (in my
case I was told off for not arriving at my desk until 9.02am just once in
the past week that it's been monitored - others were 1 minute late twice or
up to 5 minutes late once).
The way our time-keeping is being monitored is that our workplace (a
computer repair workshop) is downstairs and the canteen is upstairs and the
company director is watching us on a CCTV camera on the stairs which is one
of the things I would like to query the legality of (hence reason for
posting here) - can a camera installed for security be used for checking on
staff timekeeping (Bearing in mind the cameras aren't linked to an accurate
time-source and I've been informed they are currently showing a time 1 and
a half minutes out).

sounds like you need a new employer!

Employers can do virtually what they want to monitor employees.
CCTV like this is covered by the Data Protection Act, and should be registered
for that purpose. The employer might have to put signs up, but you can't stop it.

The IC has some extensive words here (pdf)...
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/The%20Employment%20Practices%20Data%20Protection%20Code%20Part%203%20Monitoring%20at%20work.pdf

If you are being docked wages over a minute or two, you have every right to
check what time you should be tuning your watch to. Perhaps your employer would
agree to a synchronised 'official' clock in the canteen or somewhere.

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
I also thoought the definition of timekeeping in relation to work times
meant being in the building so 'available to work' rather than having to be
at a specific workbench at the start time.

If your employer is being as precise as 45 seconds, then I expect you both
already know exactly when and where you should be at the start of work.

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
Things could get interesting as we're sometimes asked to work unpaid
overtime of up to an hour if some hardware is needed to be sent out to a
customer urgently and as my supervisor has also been criticized for the
same timekeeping problem he's advised us to just down tools at our normal
5.30pm finish time no matter how urgent the current repair job is.
It's not just our department - one of the office staff upstairs was called
up for being late and got the cctv recording checked - he was 45 seconds
late.
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over company
staff?

Get the employer to lighten up or vote with your feet and change jobs.

get them to read modern management books
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=presenteeism+absenteeism&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB

[TEAL'C]

Your boss sounds like an absolute Twat
Vote with your feet he obviously has problems unfortunately they may be due
to iminent collapse of the business or personal problems
Either way sounds like shit environment to work in Vote with your feet Man

[The Caretaker ...]

and our work start time is 9.00am we use the spare time before we
start to have a tea-break in the staff canteen and don't get to our
desks until just after 9.00am

So it's not just a 'one-off' lateness, it's part of your usual pattern.

Things could get interesting as we're sometimes asked to work unpaid
overtime of up to an hour if some hardware is needed to be sent out
to a customer urgently and as my supervisor has also been criticized
for the same timekeeping problem he's advised us to just down tools
at our normal
5.30pm finish time no matter how urgent the current repair job is.

If it's unpaid then it's voluntary, I'd say don't do it.

What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over
company staff?

An abuse call is a Bullshit call, IMHO. Just make sure you're at your
work ealry enough, you know the rules. And if you don't then check them
and argue from a knowledgable point of view, not from what 'you think'
is right. Your company might have very specific ideas about exactly
when your working day starts, and this will be (should be) in your Terms
of Employment.

["nightjar" .uk.com>]

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
Here's something I'm curious about.
Can an employer legally accuse a member of staff of being late for work if
they were in the buiding but not at their desks and how far after start
time is mimimum for it to qualify as 'late' and can CCTV be legally used to
monitor staff arrival times?
Today my whole department at work were called into a meeting and told by our
manager to improve time keeping, the reason being that even though we all
usually arrive in the company between 8:30am and 8.50am and our work start
time is 9.00am we use the spare time before we start to have a tea-break in
the staff canteen and don't get to our desks until just after 9.00am (in my
case I was told off for not arriving at my desk until 9.02am just once in
the past week that it's been monitored - others were 1 minute late twice or
up to 5 minutes late once).

Would you be happy if your employer arbitarily deducted a few minutes wages
each day? That is the other side of the same coin.

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
The way our time-keeping is being monitored is that our workplace (a
computer repair workshop) is downstairs and the canteen is upstairs and the
company director is watching us on a CCTV camera on the stairs which is one
of the things I would like to query the legality of (hence reason for
posting here) - can a camera installed for security be used for checking on
staff timekeeping (Bearing in mind the cameras aren't linked to an accurate
time-source and I've been informed they are currently showing a time 1 and
a half minutes out).

Provided that the CCTV is not covert and its use is registered with the
Information Commissioner, then it can be used for staff monitoring.
Presumably, the director wears a watch, so the time shown on the CCTV need
not be the basis he uses for determining how late you are.

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
I also thoought the definition of timekeeping in relation to work times
meant being in the building so 'available to work' rather than having to be
at a specific workbench at the start time.

If you normally need to be at a workstation to carry out your job, then IMO
that is your place of work. Otherwise, you could spend the whole day in the
canteen and claim that you are 'available for work'.

...

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over company
staff?

Leave.

If you don't like the old-fashioned work ethic being applied, find an
employer who thinks the same way.

Colin Bignell

[Harry The Horse]

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
If you don't like the old-fashioned work ethic being applied, find an
employer who thinks the same way.

Strange how these employers who except an old-fashioned work ethic, don't
also pay old fashioned overtime when an employee works more than his
contracted hours.

["nightjar" .uk.com>]

Post by Harry The Horse

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
If you don't like the old-fashioned work ethic being applied, find an
employer who thinks the same way.

Strange how these employers who except an old-fashioned work ethic, don't
also pay old fashioned overtime when an employee works more than his
contracted hours.

That's what is old-fashioned about it :-) My father would have been right at
home with the OP's employer. Personally, I don't really care what my
employees' timekeeping is like, provided that the work is done.

Colin Bignell

[Cynic]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:14:11 -0000, "nightjar"

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Would you be happy if your employer arbitarily deducted a few minutes wages
each day? That is the other side of the same coin.

I would agree if the employees left promptly. But the OP stated that
the employees regularly work unpaid overtime when workload requires
it. Would you be happy if an important job needed to be finished, and
the employees refused to work 45 seconds past knocking-off time, or
demanded overtime pay for leaving 5 minutes late to finish up?

If this is a one-off, I'd put it down to a "bad hair day".

["nightjar" .uk.com>]

Post by Cynic
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:14:11 -0000, "nightjar"

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Would you be happy if your employer arbitarily deducted a few minutes wages
each day? That is the other side of the same coin.

I would agree if the employees left promptly. But the OP stated that
the employees regularly work unpaid overtime when workload requires
it.

I'm not of the school that thinks two wrongs make a right. Would the
employees steal from the petty cash to redress the unjustness that their
employer is not paying them properly for their work? If not, why do they
think that stealing time is any different? A couple of minutes late every
day is equivalent to one extra day off every year.

Post by Cynic
Would you be happy if an important job needed to be finished, and
the employees refused to work 45 seconds past knocking-off time, or
demanded overtime pay for leaving 5 minutes late to finish up?

There is not much danger of most of my employees doing unpaid overtime. They
are, however, more than willing to do paid overtime and five minutes to
finish up would be 15 minutes overtime pay.

Colin Bignell

[Cynic]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:06:15 -0000, "nightjar"

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by Cynic
I would agree if the employees left promptly. But the OP stated that
the employees regularly work unpaid overtime when workload requires
it.

I'm not of the school that thinks two wrongs make a right.

It is hardly a case of two wrongs making a right. So long as the
total hours worked each week are as contracted, then I don't see any
wrong being done. That's assuming that there is no external need for
starting spot on time, such as opening a shop or dealing with customer
calls.

And as you stated in another post, the main thing is that the work
gets done. I personally don't mind what time my staff come & go -
it's getting the work done that matters. It's better IMO if the staff
find a start and end time that best suits them - and preferably avoids
sitting in traffic queues. Within reason of course - I don't want to
keep the whole building heated to allow one person to work way outside
of normal hours.

And if someone works their guts out and does a week's worth of work in
three days, they can take the next two days off AFAIAC. As said, it
would be different if there was an external reason to be available at
set times.

["nightjar" .uk.com>]

Post by Cynic
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:06:15 -0000, "nightjar"

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>

Post by Cynic
I would agree if the employees left promptly. But the OP stated that
the employees regularly work unpaid overtime when workload requires
it.

I'm not of the school that thinks two wrongs make a right.

It is hardly a case of two wrongs making a right. So long as the
total hours worked each week are as contracted, then I don't see any
wrong being done. That's assuming that there is no external need for
starting spot on time, such as opening a shop or dealing with customer
calls.
And as you stated in another post, the main thing is that the work
gets done. I personally don't mind what time my staff come & go -
it's getting the work done that matters. It's better IMO if the staff
find a start and end time that best suits them - and preferably avoids
sitting in traffic queues. Within reason of course - I don't want to
keep the whole building heated to allow one person to work way outside
of normal hours.
And if someone works their guts out and does a week's worth of work in
three days, they can take the next two days off AFAIAC. As said, it
would be different if there was an external reason to be available at
set times.

To my mind, the main difference is one of approval. You and I prefer a more
flexible approach. The OP's employer obviously does not. The employees are,
therefore, taking time off without approval. Perhaps the hours do balance
over the year, although it is more likely that there is an imbalance one way
or the other. However, to use the petty cash analogy again, would you be
happy if your staff were making unapproved borrowings from petty cash, even
if the balance was correct at audit?

Colin Bignell

[Harry The Horse]

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
To my mind, the main difference is one of approval. You and I prefer a more
flexible approach. The OP's employer obviously does not.

Actually the OP's employer does want a more flexible approach, as he asks
staff to stay late to complete important orders. He just wants all the
flexibility to be on the employee's side and none on his. If employees
decide to respond by withdrawing flexibility then that is no more and no
less a 'wrong' than the employer declining to show flexibility. Not to do
so is to make yourself a doormat for others and doormats get no respect or
consideration whatsoever.

[anonymous (for legal reasons).]

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Provided that the CCTV is not covert and its use is registered with the
Information Commissioner, then it can be used for staff monitoring.
Presumably, the director wears a watch, so the time shown on the CCTV need
not be the basis he uses for determining how late you are.

Doesn't the register need to list the uses the camera is put to - so if it's
only registered as a security system (so for general monitoring) and is
used for timekeeping (so is being used for monitoring specific staff) then
this is illegal until the register is updated?

It's not being monitored that I object to but the method being used - I feel
that if they want to monitor timekeeping they should install a clocking in
system and not mis-use existing hardware.

[joe parkin]

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
It's not being monitored that I object to but the method being used - I feel
that if they want to monitor timekeeping they should install a clocking in
system and not mis-use existing hardware.

Look at the situation from your employers pov. his workers are taking
the piss by constantly being late does he spend extra money on a
clocking system or use existing facilities?
Maybe buy a clocking system and reduce the amount of wage rise next
year?

[Me]

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
It's not being monitored that I object to but the method being used - I feel
that if they want to monitor timekeeping they should install a clocking in
system and not mis-use existing hardware.

Get a photo of the empty stairs & put it in front of the camera.

Works in all spy pictures.

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:03:06 +0000, "anonymous (for legal reasons)."

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Provided that the CCTV is not covert and its use is registered with the
Information Commissioner, then it can be used for staff monitoring.
Presumably, the director wears a watch, so the time shown on the CCTV need
not be the basis he uses for determining how late you are.

Doesn't the register need to list the uses the camera is put to - so if it's
only registered as a security system (so for general monitoring) and is
used for timekeeping (so is being used for monitoring specific staff) then
this is illegal until the register is updated?

It only needs to be registered at all if the images are being stored
in a manner that allows reasonably easy retrieval by some for of
person identifier.

[Tom]

Alex Heney wrote...

Post by Alex Heney
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:03:06 +0000, "anonymous (for legal reasons)."

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Provided that the CCTV is not covert and its use is registered with the
Information Commissioner, then it can be used for staff monitoring.
Presumably, the director wears a watch, so the time shown on the CCTV need
not be the basis he uses for determining how late you are.

Doesn't the register need to list the uses the camera is put to - so if it's
only registered as a security system (so for general monitoring) and is
used for timekeeping (so is being used for monitoring specific staff) then
this is illegal until the register is updated?

It only needs to be registered at all if the images are being stored
in a manner that allows reasonably easy retrieval by some for of
person identifier.

Linking the camera via a monitoring screen to the time-keeping books seems to me
a prima facie case of easy retrieval, and hence registrable for this new
purpose. I believe the Information Commissioner takes a wider view of retrieval
than suggested above.

from his CCTV guidance [post-durant]...

<quote>

3. I only use a very basic CCTV system, how am I affected?

If you have just a basic CCTV system, your use may no longer
be covered by the DPA. This depends on what happens in practice. For
example, small retailers would not be covered who:
- only have a couple cameras,
- can’t move them remotely,
- just record on video tape whatever the cameras pick up, and
- only give the recorded images to the police to investigate an
incident in their shop.

The shopkeepers would need to make sure that they do not use the
images for their own purposes such as checking whether a member of
staff is doing their job properly, because if they did, then that
person would be the focus of attention and they would be trying to
learn things about them so the use would then be covered by the DPA.

</quote>

[Alex Heney]

Post by Tom
Alex Heney wrote...

Post by Alex Heney
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:03:06 +0000, "anonymous (for legal reasons)."

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Provided that the CCTV is not covert and its use is registered with the
Information Commissioner, then it can be used for staff monitoring.
Presumably, the director wears a watch, so the time shown on the CCTV need
not be the basis he uses for determining how late you are.

Doesn't the register need to list the uses the camera is put to - so if it's
only registered as a security system (so for general monitoring) and is
used for timekeeping (so is being used for monitoring specific staff) then
this is illegal until the register is updated?

It only needs to be registered at all if the images are being stored
in a manner that allows reasonably easy retrieval by some for of
person identifier.

Linking the camera via a monitoring screen to the time-keeping books seems to me
a prima facie case of easy retrieval,

IF it were actually linked in that way, then yes, you would be right.
But there has been no indication that it has.

What appears to have been suggested is that the boss was reviewing the
tapes manually to pick out those coming to their desks late.

Post by Tom
and hence registrable for this new
purpose. I believe the Information Commissioner takes a wider view of retrieval
than suggested above.
from his CCTV guidance [post-durant]...
<quote>
3. I only use a very basic CCTV system, how am I affected?
If you have just a basic CCTV system, your use may no longer
be covered by the DPA. This depends on what happens in practice. For
- only have a couple cameras,
- can’t move them remotely,
- just record on video tape whatever the cameras pick up, and
- only give the recorded images to the police to investigate an
incident in their shop.
The shopkeepers would need to make sure that they do not use the
images for their own purposes such as checking whether a member of
staff is doing their job properly, because if they did, then that
person would be the focus of attention and they would be trying to
learn things about them so the use would then be covered by the DPA.
</quote>

That viewpoint is hard to justify under the law.

To be classed as "data", the information must be processed by
computer, or must form part of a "relevant filing system", which is
defined as "relevant filing system" means any set of information
relating to individuals to the extent that, although the information
is not processed by means of equipment operating automatically in
response to instructions given for that purpose, the set is
structured, either by reference to individuals or by reference to
criteria relating to individuals, in such a way that specific
information relating to a particular individual is readily
accessible."

[Tom]

Alex Heney wrote...

Post by Alex Heney

Post by Tom
Alex Heney wrote...

Post by Alex Heney
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:03:06 +0000, "anonymous (for legal reasons)."

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).

Post by "nightjar" .uk.com>
Provided that the CCTV is not covert and its use is registered with the
Information Commissioner, then it can be used for staff monitoring.
Presumably, the director wears a watch, so the time shown on the CCTV need
not be the basis he uses for determining how late you are.

Doesn't the register need to list the uses the camera is put to - so if it's
only registered as a security system (so for general monitoring) and is
used for timekeeping (so is being used for monitoring specific staff) then
this is illegal until the register is updated?

It only needs to be registered at all if the images are being stored
in a manner that allows reasonably easy retrieval by some for of
person identifier.

Linking the camera via a monitoring screen to the time-keeping books seems to me
a prima facie case of easy retrieval,

IF it were actually linked in that way, then yes, you would be right.
But there has been no indication that it has.
What appears to have been suggested is that the boss was reviewing the
tapes manually to pick out those coming to their desks late.

Post by Tom
and hence registrable for this new
purpose. I believe the Information Commissioner takes a wider view of retrieval
than suggested above.
from his CCTV guidance [post-durant]...
The shopkeepers would need to make sure that they do not use the
images for their own purposes such as checking whether a member of
staff is doing their job properly, because if they did, then that
person would be the focus of attention and they would be trying to
learn things about them so the use would then be covered by the DPA.

That viewpoint is hard to justify under the law.
To be classed as "data", the information must be processed by
computer, or must form part of a "relevant filing system", which is
defined as "relevant filing system" means any set of information
relating to individuals to the extent that, although the information
is not processed by means of equipment operating automatically in
response to instructions given for that purpose, the set is
structured, either by reference to individuals or by reference to
criteria relating to individuals, in such a way that specific
information relating to a particular individual is readily
accessible."

"data" means information which -

(b) is recorded *with the intention* that it should be processed by means of
such equipment [computer], or

(c) is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or *with the intention* that
it should form part of a relevant filing system, or..

It obviously ends up as personal data if it is linked to the individual wages.
I am talking about the time-keeping, and not the CCTV images. The question is at
what point does it become personal data. It is definitely personal data when it
is written onto the pay-slip for the tardy employee, even if it is not at the
time the employer makes a note of it. If data is being processed with the
intention it will go on the employee's file or payslip, then it is personal data
and the data controller and his CCTV should be registered for that intended purpose.
No?


Perhaps the OP would like to post some of the current registration details.

[Alex Heney]

Post by Tom
Alex Heney wrote...

<snip>

Post by Tom

Post by Alex Heney
To be classed as "data", the information must be processed by
computer, or must form part of a "relevant filing system", which is
defined as "relevant filing system" means any set of information
relating to individuals to the extent that, although the information
is not processed by means of equipment operating automatically in
response to instructions given for that purpose, the set is
structured, either by reference to individuals or by reference to
criteria relating to individuals, in such a way that specific
information relating to a particular individual is readily
accessible."

"data" means information which -
(b) is recorded *with the intention* that it should be processed by means of
such equipment [computer], or
(c) is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or *with the intention* that
it should form part of a relevant filing system, or..
It obviously ends up as personal data if it is linked to the individual wages.
I am talking about the time-keeping, and not the CCTV images.

Well yes, that, if recorded, is obviously personal data, and will also
clearly be covered by any registration for "employee records".

But it is the CCTV data that we were talking about.

If each tape is given a key number, and then the key numbers of all
tapes that an employee is recorded on is stored against that employee
record, then the tapes become "data".

But unless something along those lines is done, it is not data,
because there is no way of knowing which employees any image relates
to without the personal knowledge, and looking all through the tape.

Post by Tom
The question is at
what point does it become personal data. It is definitely personal data when it
is written onto the pay-slip for the tardy employee, even if it is not at the
time the employer makes a note of it. If data is being processed with the
intention it will go on the employee's file or payslip, then it is personal data
and the data controller and his CCTV should be registered for that intended purpose.
No?

No.

If they are going to store details of timekeeping, against each
employee, then that is certainly personal data. But unless a link to
the CCTV recordings is made, those are not personal data within the
meaning of the act (as I read it, IANAL).

And timekeeping data will certainly be covered by the generic
registration of "employee records".

[Steve Walker]

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
It's not just our department - one of the office staff upstairs
was called up for being late and got the cctv recording checked -
he was 45 seconds late.
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over
company staff?

Find another job - these people clearly don't value staff

[joe parkin]

Post by Steve Walker

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
It's not just our department - one of the office staff upstairs
was called up for being late and got the cctv recording checked -
he was 45 seconds late.
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over
company staff?

Find another job - these people clearly don't value staff

Also, these employees do not value the people who pay their wages. They
know they are late as a normal part of their day. Wise up and appear on
time and disappear on time unless paid overtime.
Always the cry of it's only a minute. You never see them start a minute
early though.

[anonimulo]

Post by Steve Walker

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
It's not just our department - one of the office staff upstairs
was called up for being late and got the cctv recording checked -
he was 45 seconds late.
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over
company staff?

Find another job - these people clearly don't value staff

That's one way, and I bet their attrition figures are so high they'll never
need to make anyone redundant. A better course of action to get back at
these sort of wankers IMHO is to join a union and invite your colleagues to
do so.

[joe parkin]

Post by anonimulo
That's one way, and I bet their attrition figures are so high they'll never
need to make anyone redundant. A better course of action to get back at
these sort of wankers IMHO is to join a union and invite your colleagues to
do so.

Why are they wankers for wanting workers to start on time?

[joe parkin]

Post by anonimulo
That's one way, and I bet their attrition figures are so high they'll never
need to make anyone redundant. A better course of action to get back at
these sort of wankers IMHO is to join a union and invite your colleagues to
do so.

Bad form and all that, but why would unions promote starting at a later
time than that stipulated by the employees contract?

[Martin Davies]

Post by Steve Walker

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
It's not just our department - one of the office staff upstairs
was called up for being late and got the cctv recording checked -
he was 45 seconds late.
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over
company staff?

Find another job - these people clearly don't value staff

Or they value their business more.

Martin <><

[Cynic]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:41:59 +0000, "anonymous (for legal reasons)."

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
Today my whole department at work were called into a meeting and told by our
manager to improve time keeping, the reason being that even though we all
usually arrive in the company between 8:30am and 8.50am and our work start
time is 9.00am we use the spare time before we start to have a tea-break in
the staff canteen and don't get to our desks until just after 9.00am (in my
case I was told off for not arriving at my desk until 9.02am just once in
the past week that it's been monitored - others were 1 minute late twice or
up to 5 minutes late once).

First, poor timekeeping is certainly a disciplinery matter, and it
really doesn't matter what method is used to check on timekeeping.
When there is a dispute about the facts of any matter, the truth
should be judged on "balance of probability".

In this case, it appears that your management are being unbelievably
petty, especially as you say that staff are usually prepared to put in
extra time for no pay when needed.

I would tend to approach whoever is responsible for the decision to
lambast your timekeeping, and point out that if there is to be no
flexibility whatsoever wrt start time, then he will lose the
flexibility he has enjoyed wrt finishing time. Try to present the
argument reasonably and be non-confrontational.

It's quite possibly been brought about by a particular incident that
got someone upset (perhaps a customer complaining that they could not
get hold of anyone at 9:00). If working conditions are otherwise
acceptable, try not to get in a huff & on your high horse. The person
responsible may have been upset at the time & now regrets acting in
that way. Allow him to "save face" and it will probably all die down
in no time. Get all confrontational, and it could escalate into
something major.

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:41:59 +0000, "anonymous (for legal reasons)."

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
Here's something I'm curious about.
Can an employer legally accuse a member of staff of being late for work if
they were in the buiding but not at their desks and how far after start
time is mimimum for it to qualify as 'late' and can CCTV be legally used to
monitor staff arrival times?
Today my whole department at work were called into a meeting and told by our
manager to improve time keeping, the reason being that even though we all
usually arrive in the company between 8:30am and 8.50am and our work start
time is 9.00am we use the spare time before we start to have a tea-break in
the staff canteen and don't get to our desks until just after 9.00am (in my
case I was told off for not arriving at my desk until 9.02am just once in
the past week that it's been monitored - others were 1 minute late twice or
up to 5 minutes late once).
The way our time-keeping is being monitored is that our workplace (a
computer repair workshop) is downstairs and the canteen is upstairs and the
company director is watching us on a CCTV camera on the stairs which is one
of the things I would like to query the legality of (hence reason for
posting here) - can a camera installed for security be used for checking on
staff timekeeping (Bearing in mind the cameras aren't linked to an accurate
time-source and I've been informed they are currently showing a time 1 and
a half minutes out).

It is perfectly legal.
It would not be acceptable as evidence in a court of law (where time
was significant) unless it could be shown that the time was properly
calibrated and correct. But this is not a court of law you are talking
of.

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
I also thoought the definition of timekeeping in relation to work times
meant being in the building so 'available to work' rather than having to be
at a specific workbench at the start time.

No. It means whatever your contract says.

And if you contract says you should be *working* from 9:00, then you
should be at your desk at that time, not in the canteen.

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
Things could get interesting as we're sometimes asked to work unpaid
overtime of up to an hour if some hardware is needed to be sent out to a
customer urgently and as my supervisor has also been criticized for the
same timekeeping problem he's advised us to just down tools at our normal
5.30pm finish time no matter how urgent the current repair job is.

Quite right.

If management are going to be petty of trivial amounts of time, then
don't you do anything more than contracted for.

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over company
staff?

Not a lot :-(

[joe parkin]

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over company
staff?

Easy, start on time.

[Martin]

Post by joe parkin

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over company
staff?

Easy, start on time.

and leave on time also

[joe parkin]

Post by Martin

Post by joe parkin

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over company
staff?

Easy, start on time.

and leave on time also

Deffo. Sometimes (rarely) situations arise that neccesitate working
after hours which should be paid.

[Martin Davies]

Post by anonymous (for legal reasons).
Here's something I'm curious about.
Can an employer legally accuse a member of staff of being late for work if
they were in the buiding but not at their desks and how far after start
time is mimimum for it to qualify as 'late' and can CCTV be legally used to
monitor staff arrival times?
Today my whole department at work were called into a meeting and told by our
manager to improve time keeping, the reason being that even though we all
usually arrive in the company between 8:30am and 8.50am and our work start
time is 9.00am we use the spare time before we start to have a tea-break in
the staff canteen and don't get to our desks until just after 9.00am (in my
case I was told off for not arriving at my desk until 9.02am just once in
the past week that it's been monitored - others were 1 minute late twice or
up to 5 minutes late once).
The way our time-keeping is being monitored is that our workplace (a
computer repair workshop) is downstairs and the canteen is upstairs and the
company director is watching us on a CCTV camera on the stairs which is one
of the things I would like to query the legality of (hence reason for
posting here) - can a camera installed for security be used for checking on
staff timekeeping (Bearing in mind the cameras aren't linked to an accurate
time-source and I've been informed they are currently showing a time 1 and
a half minutes out).
I also thoought the definition of timekeeping in relation to work times
meant being in the building so 'available to work' rather than having to be
at a specific workbench at the start time.
Things could get interesting as we're sometimes asked to work unpaid
overtime of up to an hour if some hardware is needed to be sent out to a
customer urgently and as my supervisor has also been criticized for the
same timekeeping problem he's advised us to just down tools at our normal
5.30pm finish time no matter how urgent the current repair job is.
It's not just our department - one of the office staff upstairs was called
up for being late and got the cctv recording checked - he was 45 seconds
late.
What can we do to combat what we feel is an abuse of power over company
staff?

Is it their abuse of power?
Understandably, some employers see their staff are available to work only
when they are actually at their workbench or desk and able to actually work.
That can include being logged in on any computers, plugged into phone system
etc.
Whether they use CCTV to keep tabs on timekeeping or a manager using his
watch, ultimately its the same.

Might seem petty to some, but from the business viewpoint it can add up
overall in a company to several weeks or months worth of missed man-hours in
work.
Just take an average of 5 minutes late per person per month on average, for
100 staff. That adds up to 2 1/2 weeks work lost. I've worked some places
where 5 minutes a day would be low for some people.

As for unpaid overtime, thats up to the employee representatives to
negotiate with the company.

Martin <><