Electronic Surveillance Of Employee Case Study

1367 Words 6 Pages
Register to read the introduction… There is a huge difference in open area office and enclosed offices. Employees who work in open area offices or shared offices are subject to be videoed and audio monitoring by their employer without any notification. The employer may use monitored of employees as a mechanism to deter theft, maintain security, and to protect themselves as well as its employees from unwarranted laws suits. There are many different laws that protect employees when it comes to video monitoring and surveillance in an enclosed office area that involve employee privacy. The employer should give employee prior notification to its employees about surveillance in these areas. The employer should also input information of surveillance in its employee handbook and policies. The employer should have some type of reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace environment. Employers should take the needed precautions when using surveillance on enclosed or partially enclosed office space, as opposed to open office areas. The employer should make sure there is a legitimate need to take action that may be construed as an intrusion into employee …show more content…
Herman is also responsible for maintaining their dealership financial production level. Knowledge of his sales people interaction with his consumer would ensure that all the information that is given to the buyer is correct and accurate. These are all good and justifiable reason for Mr. Herman to use electronic surveillance systems to monitor his employees. In the best interest of Mr. Herman and the car dealership the employees and the customers of the company should be previously notified of the active surveillance system.
This type of notification to the consumer and the employees would give protection to the dealership against any legal action that might be brought against the company. The ECPA allow employers to listen in on their employees if they our conducting everyday business that could make the company liable for the employees actions. This law would give Mr. Herman all the legal rights to monitor his employees while they are conducting company business that the company could be legally held accountable for their employee’s
…show more content…
Employees cannot be monitored on their personal phones or computers even if they are conducting business for their company. The extent that an employer can use electronic surveillance on their employees is very extensive. The current laws protect employees when it comes to personal items and personal space that they may use in a business manner. Explain to what extent the inclusion of innocent, unaware third parties in such surveillance determine whether it is legal. Wiretapping laws which include video and photograph states that only one of the parties need to be informed of the recordings. Most states have wiretapping laws that is known as “one party consent” laws. This would make it legal to record customers that are in a workplace environment where there is open space. Customers can be recorded as long as their personal privacy is not being harmed. Customers can not by monitored in places such as restrooms or dressing rooms. Customers have no expectation of privacy unless they are specifically given such an expectation by the business. A business can be held accountable if they post signs that give the impression that the customer is not being

Related Documents