Biometrics – useful or dangerous?

Lee refused to give his fingerprints to his employer as part of a new work sign-in system and was eventually sacked for his persistent refusals. Lee wasn’t just thinking about privacy; he declared: ‘‘It’s my biometric data. It’s not appropriate for them to have it.’’

Lee raised a concern that has been expressed broadly about biometric data – what if it gets shared and misused? You can’t change a fingerprint like you can a phone number, and as Lee said: ‘‘If someone else has control of my biometric data they can use it for their own purposes – purposes that benefit them – not me.’’

Superior Wood argued that the new scanning system was implemented so it could address payroll issues and better track who was or wasn’t on the premises. The Fair Work Commission agreed but rested its decision on Lee not being given sufficient notification to allow for a process of informed consent.

Lee could be forgiven for being disappointed that the commission failed to grapple with the ownership of his biometric data and instead decided on the basis of procedure. Should fingerprint scanning be accepted as reasonable workplace policy, and those who don’t comply with it be liable for dismissal? Isn’t it more reliable to have a fingerprint scanned than clocking in cards where another person can use your card and cards can be lost or stolen?

The New Zealand Employment Court some years ago in a case involving OCS Limited and the Service and Food Workers’ Union looked at the same sort of issues. The case concerned employees being required to provide their fingerprints for a new timekeeping system. The court looked at a number of issues, considering whether the technology was compatible with the contractual obligations of the parties, and whether the employer had balanced between the need for the technology and the level of personal intrusiveness involved for the individuals concerned. The court held that the employer has the right to introduce different systems of time-keeping technology, subject only to reasonable consideration of valid concerns raised by the union or the employees of the company.

However, like in the Australian case, faulty process was critical. The court held that while OCS’S decision to implement the new scheme would have been an adequate basis for lawful and reasonable instruction to the workers, OCS still had to comply with its obligations to consult in a timely and appropriate way with its staff. It failed to do so and accordingly the instruction was unlawful.

Technology has moved even further than fingerprints. Microchips have also entered the employment scene.

American firm Three Square Market had 80 of the company’s 250 employees elect to be implanted with microchips. Some workers claimed they were easy to use whether for accessing the building or ordering their favourite foods and drinks. Interestingly, people appear to be more resistant to microchips than biometric scanning – probably because of the intrusiveness involved and the uncomfortable anticipation of the insertion of the chip in their body. However, in comparison with fingerprints, a chip can be removed at any time, while biometric data is tied to you in the company records forever.

Just as technology replaced keys with swipe cards to gain access to workplaces, the advance of technology is sure to see the swipe cards look like the stagecoach of yesteryear.