Australian state launches inquiry into workplace surveillance

The Australian state of Victoria is launching a parliamentary inquiry into workplace surveillance with unions proposing new legislation limiting surveillance against workers – including biometric scans.

The Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC), which represents 40 unions in the southeast state, is arguing for the creation of a standalone act to ensure employee privacy called the Privacy In Working Life Act (PIWLA).

“Privacy in Working Life Act should stand alone from the existing Surveillance Devices Act – placing limits on the use of optical, audio, visual, digital and location tracking surveillance against workers,” VTHC says.

The union’s proposal is one of 42 submissions from individuals and organizations submitted to the parliamentary inquiry after a call was issued in May. The inquiry is set to examine the state’s legal basis for workplace surveillance, its impact on workers and the handling of collected data.

Unlike neighboring New South Wales, Victoria does not have specific workplace surveillance legislation. Instead, it relies on a patchwork of legislation, including the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic) which does not explicitly mention biometric information.

The Victoria’s Legislative Assembly Economy and Infrastructure Committee plans to hold public hearings on workplace surveillance throughout September and November. The first public hearing is set for September 3rd, 2024, and will offer a chance for unions to state their arguments.

Aside from unions, industry groups, legal experts and academics have also pitched their submissions for workplace surveillance legislation in Victoria. While some support standalone legislation, others are proposing reforms or arguing that laws do not need changes.

According to the Business Council of Australia, the country is already undertaking various inquiries and legislative reforms that will impact workplace privacy in Victoria.

Directions for change

“We recommend that the Inquiry consider the outcomes of these processes before assessing any potential need for further regulation of workplace surveillance in Victoria,” the group says.

According to the proposed PIWLA, surveillance would be allowed only to ensure worker and property safety and supervise processes. The rulebook would include data information rights for workers. The proposal is also backed by one of Australia’s largest unions the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU).

“It is completely unknown what each individual employer does with the data that is collected or how long it is held for, who has access to it or if it is disposed of properly,” says the AWU, adding that individual employees have almost no rights to opt out of data collection or access their data.

Similar complaints were echoed by the country’s legal organizations, including the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) and the Law Institute of Victoria (LIV). Currently, Victoria’s employers are not required to disclose surveillance at the workplace to their employees, the groups say.

“The ALA is also concerned that employees in Victoria are largely unaware of the laws listed above relevant to workplace surveillance and, by extension, are unaware of their rights,” says ALA.

On the other hand, industry organizations and companies highlighted the benefits of software systems that help plan, track and optimize production processes as well as surveillance camera systems that keep employees safe.

Victoria’s workplace surveillance at a glance

Submissions for the parliamentary inquiry also revealed other information on workplace surveillance.

According to a survey conducted by the Australian HR Institute (AHRI), the most common type of surveillance was cameras: Half of the organizations surveyed used camera surveillance.

Nearly 20 percent of organizations used third-party services to manage surveillance data while the vast majority (81 percent) followed internal procedures to manage surveillance data. Among 59 respondents, nearly 60 percent said that they do not have policies regarding workplace surveillance nor request employee consent for such activities, the survey showed.

Trade unions also collected legal case studies on workplace surveillance cases. This includes a 2024 dispute between the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) and the company Laminex to introduce a facial biometric system for employee attendance developed by Kronos Australia, owned by UKG.

Another known case is Jeremy Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd (2019). The court ruled that the company did not have a valid reason to dismiss an employee after he refused to provide his biometric fingerprint data for its employee attendance system. The court, however, ruled that the dismissal was not lawful because the company did not provide the legally prescribed notice and did not consider whether introducing a biometric attendance system was reasonable.

Article Topics

Australia  |  biometrics  |  data privacy  |  legislation  |  workforce management