10.10.2022

Electronic Monitoring Policies in Ontario – A Possibility for New Zealand?

The frequency and intensity with which employees are monitored by employers through the use of electronic systems have been amplified with technological advancement in recent years, raising privacy concerns in many countries.

This has been further compounded by the surge in work from home arrangements, as employers are increasingly concerned about how (and whether!) their employees are working when out of view.

It started with some businesses recording telephone calls within their systems and with the installation of external video cameras / CCTV, on business premises.  However, monitoring has since progressed to include cameras inside the workplace, GPS in mobile phones, automatic recording of mobile telephone conversations, monitoring remote work through digital systems, biometrics and facial recognition, GPS monitoring of vehicles, as well as the recording and storing of that information.

Some have criticised that in the wake of such rapid technological advancement, the law has had little time to adapt and is being left behind.  It would be challenging for an employee to establish grounds that satisfy the claims available in the Employment Relations Act 2000, and less challenging for an employer to provide plausible reasons to justify its use.  The common law approach has historically favoured an employer’s right to conduct business as they see fit over the rights of employees when it comes to privacy.   

There are some restrictions on employers in New Zealand, and electronic monitoring is mainly (but not exclusively) regulated by the Privacy Act 2020.  This is principle-based legislation overseen by the Privacy Commissioner, who provides excellent guidance on the use of some of these systems, for example CCTV.  The Privacy Act stipulates that the means of collecting information should be fair and not be unreasonably intrusive.  This became particularly relevant during lockdown in situations where some employers were requiring laptop cameras to be on during working hours, even in the employee’s own home.  Nevertheless, the application of these monitoring systems has become so prevalent that it gives the appearance of being completely unrestrained.  Worse, it is not clear whether employees know the extent of the monitoring, what is happening to the information, or even that they are being monitored at all despite some fairly clear information privacy principles requiring employers to ensure their employees are aware.

In Canada, Ontario has taken a different path to address these concerns, passing new laws and amending existing statutes in Bill 88 earlier this year to create prescriptive requirements.

While these legislative changes do not apply in New Zealand, Ontario has taken the lead on issues in the employment context, including those surrounding electronic monitoring, from which we may glean further insight.  The most interesting changes are outlined below, with our comment.

Electronic Monitoring Policy Requirements

Bill 88 amends the Ontario Employment Standards Act 2000 to require employers with 25 or more employees to have a written policy on the electronic monitoring of its employees.

Electronic monitoring policies must include:

  • Whether the employer electronically monitors employees, and if so, a description of the monitoring, the circumstances in which monitoring will occur, and the purposes for which the information may be used;
  • The date the policy was prepared and any changes made to the policy; and
  • Any further information prescribed by the government.

In the New Zealand context, much of the above information is available to an employee under the Privacy Act 2020.  The Privacy Act 2020 may also require employers to disclose to employees that information is being collected, how it is being collected, how it is being stored, and how secure it is.  However, the rights afforded under the Privacy Act 2020 may not capture all information obtained by an employer through its use of electronic monitoring, and the guidelines are not prescriptive.  It is also unclear how widely understood these rights are by employers or employees.

By contrast, Bill 88 goes a few steps further to enhance transparency, create positive disclosure obligations, and ensure employees understand how their movements and actions are being monitored electronically.  It does highlight potential areas for improvement in respect of New Zealand’s own legislation.

If you have any questions about employee rights and employer obligations in the New Zealand context, please get in touch with our Employment Team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
My cross-lease neighbour wants me to consent to their extension. Can I refuse?
From time to time a cross-lease property owner may be asked by their cross-lease neighbour for their consent to specific matters, such as proposed structural alterations or additions to their neighbou...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
Contract stock edit
I have a land covenant (or an easement) registered on my title that restricts the use of my land. Can I get this removed?
Where land is subject to covenants and easements, owners might find themselves in a position where they are unintentionally or unknowingly in breach of a covenant or easement or have purchased land th...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.