had prevented him from working in his full role. The employee's refusal to do work within the scope of his duties was itself a breach of contract, and misconduct; the tribunal's findings on the dismissal were permissible.
The court noted "it is not the law that an employee who is the victim of a wrong can in all circumstances simply refuse to do any further work unless and until that wrong is remedied. He may in some circumstances have to seek his remedy in the courts."• An employee in such a position could resign, work under protest, or bring tribunal proceedings.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
Back to Contents
Surveillance Cameras and Privacy at Work 2 15 January 2018
Does covert surveillance at work breach the European Court of Human Rights Article 8 right to privacy?
Yes, held the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Lopez Ribalda & Ors v Spain.
A supermarket installed surveillance cameras to address suspected theft. Workers were only told about the visible cameras, not others which had been placed covertly. Several employees were dismissed relying on covert images. They alleged breach of Article 8 and data protection rights.
A Spanish court held that the measure was justified, appropriate, necessary and proportionate. No other equally effective means of protecting the employer's rights would have interfered less.
The ECtHR disagreed: Article 8 had been violated. Video surveillance in the workplace is a considerable intrusion into private life; it extends to personal appearance. A fair balance between the parties' rights had not been struck.
To comply with data protection laws, employees must be "explicitly, precisely and unambiguously"• informed of the existence of a personal data file, how data will be processed, the purpose for collection and the recipients of the data.
The case is distinguished from Antovic and Mirkovic v Montenegro and Kopke where no breach of Article 8 was found: that data was for a specific purpose, was confined, controlled and time-limited.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing a summary of this case.
Back to Contents
Rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations (WTR) 16 January 2018
Law firm Pinsent Masons warns employers that roles requiring continuous presence pose the greatest risk when workers are unable to take a statutory 20 minute break.
Pinsent Masons has written about the case Crawford v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd which looks at the requirements of the Working Time Directive (WTR) for rest breaks when workers are unable to take a statutory 20 minute break.
“Mr Crawford (C) is a railway signalman, working for Network Rail (N). He works on single-manned signal boxes, and the signals require continual monitoring. In practice, C is able to take short breaks from the signals. Over the course of his eight-hour shift, the breaks were substantially more than the 20 minutes rest break provided for in the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR). However, during day-time shifts a continuous 20 minute break was not possible, and he was required to be on call during any breaks he did take. The WTR specify, under reg.12(1) :- " where an adult worker's daily working time is more than six hours, he is entitled to a rest break", which, under reg.12(3) must be not less than 20 minutes and allow the worker to be away from his work station. However, in the case of railway workers, reg.12 is replaced with reg.24 which provides for the employee to be provided with " an equivalent period of compensatory rest".
C brought a claim to ET stating that he was entitled to a 20 minute rest break under reg.12, or compensatory rest under reg.24. N argued that C's breaks added up to more than 20 minutes over the course of a day, and that this was
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 96 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker