IEU on school security in the surveillance age
It’s time for workers to demand their rights are not trampled by employers using technology that breaches privacy.
In the IEU’s Draft Log of Claims for Tasmanian Catholic education, there is a notable addition at item number 35:
Limit workplace surveillance including CCTV, audio recording, email monitoring, GPS tracking, biometric recognition and productivity tracking:
Employer to consult with employees and the union before introducing new surveillance and provide details on its purpose, justification, data storage, and who can access it
Existing surveillance practices to be disclosed to employees
Surveillance not to be allowed in private spaces (e.g. bathrooms, change rooms) or be used for undisclosed purposes.
IEU Victoria Tasmania General Secretary David Brear says such measures are ‘unfortunately, now essential’ due to the range of ways member privacy is being breached in schools.
‘We need the security and privacy of members to be taken seriously and expect that such clauses will feature in most Agreements from now on. School staff have the right to know when and how they are being monitored. S
‘Surveillance must never be used to intimidate, micromanage or undermine professional judgment. Clear clauses in Agreements are essential to ensure any monitoring is transparent, proportionate and focused on genuine safety and duty-of-care needs – not performance control.’
Last year, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) welcomed federal recommendations to strengthen worker rights in relation to surveillance. Joseph Mitchell, ACTU Assistant Secretary, said workers deserved greater transparency over employer use of data and surveillance.
‘There should be no decision about monitoring and personal information that affects us without us having a say – workplace Agreements must include clear protections, so surveillance is used only for legitimate safety or operational reasons, not to undermine privacy, autonomy or job security.’
In Victoria, the Legislative Assembly Economy and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into the topic concluded that:
‘Surveillance has moved beyond camera footage and the recording of telephone calls to incorporate keylogging, wearable trackers, biometrics, neurotechnology and artificial intelligence. Existing legislation hasn’t kept pace with the dramatic changes that have occurred in recent decades and isn’t really protecting workers’ privacy.’
The report recommended laws ensuring surveillance is ‘reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate objective.’
Committee Chair Alison Marchant added: ‘It became clear throughout the Inquiry that many Victorian workers are unaware of the extent of surveillance in their workplace and how their employers are handling and storing data collected through workplace surveillance.’
The Allan Labor Government in Victoria offered in-principle support for 15 of the 18 recommendations of the inquiry, including:
Fourteen days’ written notice specifying method, scope, timing, purpose, and storage of surveillance.
Consultation with employees before introducing or changing surveillance practices.
Review of automated decisions affecting workers’ rights or employment status.
Consultation regarding third-party surveillance and steps to prevent it.
Mandatory written surveillance policies.
Prohibition on selling personal data captured through surveillance.
The government noted that there are legitimate reasons for employers to undertake workplace surveillance – including where it relates to improving workplace safety, recording workplace injuries or incidents, monitoring the use of resources and property, and detecting fraud and theft. However, it becomes problematic when it is used surreptitiously for other purposes.
Victoria’s current law, the Privacy and Data Protection Act, only applies to specified public sector organisations, leaving private sector and nongovernment school employees largely unprotected.
IEU input on surveillance
The IEU’s 2024 submission to the workplace surveillance inquiry highlighted that students themselves are ‘a unique source of privacy breaches for employees working in schools,’ including cases where students ‘openly record them in the workplace’ without consent.
The IEU emphasised:
‘Any protection is at the discretion of their employer and usually occurs after damage is done to the worker. Surveillance of an educator at school can quickly be disseminated across social media, resulting in intimidation and harassment and breaking the trust between workers and students.’
The IEU recommended:
An obligation on an employer to take all reasonable steps to ensure that persons who are on their premises do not engage in surveillance of workers without consent.
A specific prohibition on an employer using surveillance obtained in this manner in a detrimental manner to the worker.
Work on drafting legislation to implement the inquiry’s recommendations has begun. The government is considering whether to enact a dedicated workplace surveillance law or amend existing legislation. Whichever path is taken, once in place, we expect that employers will be required to comply with clear rules on monitoring, consultation, data storage, and employee consent.
Until such laws are in place, staff remain exposed to intrusive and poorly regulated monitoring.
Clauses such as those proposed in the Tasmanian Catholic Agreement offer a safeguard by demanding transparency, consultation and limits on misuse.
Members across our union should consider claiming for similar protections in their next Agreement to ensure surveillance is used only for legitimate safety or operational purposes, not to intimidate or undermine professional judgement.
Links:
Victorian Parliament Inquiry: parliament.vic.gov.au/inquiryintoworkplacesurveillance ACTU Media Release: ieu.news/883059