Like work gossip? Watch out for phones
Ever wanted to secretly record your workmates to see what they say behind your back?
One woman did and the Employment Relations Authority has agreed to accept it as evidence in her case.
Christchurch hairdresser Yasmin Firman covertly recorded a private conversation between her workmates at Synergy Hair in Riccarton late last year.
She said she did it to prove she was the subject of gossip and bullying in the workplace.
The authority recently deemed the recording admissible — despite the fact no party to the conversation knew they were being recorded.
In the past at least one person had to be aware the conversation was being recorded for a recording to be admissible.
In its decision the ERA acknowledged the decision was unusual: “Recording others secretly when the person recording is not participating in a meeting or conversation with them is generally not admissible.”
Firman also recorded a meeting between herself and salon owner Kelvyn Glading where she was given a letter outlining a disciplinary process and suspension was discussed.
This recording was made without Glading’s knowledge but was admissible because Firman took part in the conversation.
Some lawyers say the case sets a worrying precedent and caution bosses to cement strict policies to protect privacy and water- cooler conversations.
Lawyers from Simpson Grierson said accepting a recording where no party was aware they were being recorded set a worrying precedent.
“The concerning part was where she recorded a conversation with other staff members as she had left her mobile phone in the room when they were talking.
“These days everyone has a cellphone which means recordings can be made very easily.”
It was important that employers protected themselves and their employees by having clear policies around filming and recording in the workplace.
Employers could pre- empt the risk of secret recordings during disciplinary processes by recording the meetings themselves and asking whether anyone wished to record the meeting.
But other employment specialists say the workplace i s protected by New Zealand law.
Peter Moore from Phil Butler Law said the case was interesting because recording a conversation without being party to it is illegal under the Crimes Act.
Moore said the case didn’t necessarily set a precedent because decisions made by one member of the ERA did not have to be followed by the next.
“Quite often they do because they like to be consistent but they take all aspects of a case into consideration and are not bound by previous decisions,” he said.
A spokesman for the Employment Relations Authority spokesperson said evidence was assessed on a case by case basis.
“There i s no necessary flow on from one case to another.”
The case Firman v Insyn Ltd ( trading as Synergy Hair) has been heard by the ERA but the decision has not been released.