I don't think they have an official stance but from a personal point of view if i was going to record a disciplinary meeting i would make sure that both parties were aware of it,agreed to it...and make it clear that it was simply for the purpose of keeping clear detailed notes of the meeting.
This topic was covered a few weeks ago, and more and more tribunals are allowing the use of these recordings, if memory serves me well, you only have to advise if you are recording meetings held with Public bodies.
stokes11eg wrote:
if memory serves me well, you only have to advise if you are recording meetings held with Public bodies.
It's not that clear cut stokes.
There is no hard and fast guidance in law and you do so at your own risk...
Person to Person
Between two private individuals it is not prohibited to record conversations. The problem arises however if that conversation is then provided to a third party for whatever reason, without the consent of both parties. Consent can be obtained retrospectively or argue to be within the publics interest. As an example, reporters frequently record conversations covertly, but their defence is that the content is in the public’s interest and should be disclosed; in that knowledge of the recording would alter the content of the conversation significantly. A thin line is tread here and many court battles have ensued to determine what is, and what is not, considered in the public’s interest. Injunctions are the most effective option available to the recorded individual who believes recordings have been made without consent, along with any claims for damages flowing from it.
Be warned that if the data has been obtained illegally or unfairly then a party can address this by alternative means outside of the proceedings. It can issue a claim for breach of the Data Protection Act or under the above legislation claim damages for any losses suffered as a result of the recording. The Employment Appeals Tribunal has also indicated that it would exercise its Part 32 powers to override statute and admit evidence if a fair trial was at stake – so even if precautions were taken by employers to prevent recordings, for issues such as discrimination claims it may still be permitted?
There is no clear answer in this area of law, but the basic principles of obtaining consent for recordings is one that everyone should follow the guidance and if you haven’t and want to rely on it, yes you probably can, but be aware of the risks involved.
stokes11eg wrote:
if memory serves me well, you only have to advise if you are recording meetings held with Public bodies.
It's not that clear cut stokes.
There is no hard and fast guidance in law and you do so at your own risk...
Person to Person
Between two private individuals it is not prohibited to record conversations. The problem arises however if that conversation is then provided to a third party for whatever reason, without the consent of both parties. Consent can be obtained retrospectively or argue to be within the publics interest. As an example, reporters frequently record conversations covertly, but their defence is that the content is in the public’s interest and should be disclosed; in that knowledge of the recording would alter the content of the conversation significantly. A thin line is tread here and many court battles have ensued to determine what is, and what is not, considered in the public’s interest. Injunctions are the most effective option available to the recorded individual who believes recordings have been made without consent, along with any claims for damages flowing from it.
Be warned that if the data has been obtained illegally or unfairly then a party can address this by alternative means outside of the proceedings. It can issue a claim for breach of the Data Protection Act or under the above legislation claim damages for any losses suffered as a result of the recording. The Employment Appeals Tribunal has also indicated that it would exercise its Part 32 powers to override statute and admit evidence if a fair trial was at stake – so even if precautions were taken by employers to prevent recordings, for issues such as discrimination claims it may still be permitted?
There is no clear answer in this area of law, but the basic principles of obtaining consent for recordings is one that everyone should follow the guidance and if you haven’t and want to rely on it, yes you probably can, but be aware of the risks involved.
Yes, you are right but there are laws, and there are guidelines!
Outbreak of suspensions/conduct codes for swearing at a manager or even if a manager hears you swearing at Bristol Mail Centre recently. Has become the main tool for bullying those that a manager doesnt like or who has hated for years. Some managers have perfected the art of a sustained provoking session until the victim loses it. Used by a certain type of manager who invented the trick and then spread to his group. Definately cant swear at all now in the mail centre if your a OPG, which is odd when you then hear a manager who isnt in the group swearing because he doesnt know about the new trick, its part of his ordinary vocabulary, or its a way of being friendly/confiding. Meanwhile the management sub group gets bigger and bigger taking the piss out of everyone else.
In the case of Chairman and Governors of Amwell View School v Mrs C Dogherty, Mrs Dogherty, a teaching assistant dismissed for misconduct brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal and sought to disclose evidence that was covert recordings of the both the disciplinary hearings and ‘private’ panel deliberations. The Employment Tribunal allowed the secret recordings as evidence before the Tribunal.
"Today’s workplace has become heartless and soulless. Employees are seen as units of labour, automatons, functionaries, objects for achieving designated tasks, and as costs to be minimised."
I have read that the best way to get around the recording legalities is to first write up a transcript of the recording. Its not the actual recording of the incident that is a problem its just the sharing it with a third party. So a transcript can be given to the tribunal or to an area rep for instance with a statement that if the accused agrees then the actual recording could be given as evidence. That way if the accused refuses to allow the tribunal or area rep to hear the recording it can be used as an indication of guilt without getting yourself into trouble yet they can still read what was said. I am not pretending iam an expert though so dont this opinion without doing your own research!
"Today’s workplace has become heartless and soulless. Employees are seen as units of labour, automatons, functionaries, objects for achieving designated tasks, and as costs to be minimised."
This topic was covered a few weeks ago, and more and more tribunals are allowing the use of these recordings, if memory serves me well, you only have to advise if you are recording meetings held with Public bodies.
Yes, you are right but there are laws, and there are guidelines!