Worker wins €5,000 over hidden cam in dental lab

‘Boss called her a stupid idiot’

A FEMALE worker at a dental lab left her job in distress after she discovered that a secret camera had been placed by her employer in a folder to snoop on her.

Now, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ruled that the dental technician was entitled to resign and claim constructive dismissal and has ordered the dental lab, run by a husband-and-wife team, to pay the worker €5,000.

The dental technician told the hearing that she was extremely upset and concerned to discover the concealed camera, especially in light of the fact that she had previously received inappropriate messages via WhatsApp from the husband.

She said that on her return to work from leave in September 2017, she discovered the hidden camera, called a ‘Clever Dog Smart Camera’, in a ring binder folder placed at the reception desk.

The covert camera was taped to the wall and pointed in the direction of her desk with an intermittent flashing light. She found the lens was behind a hole in the folder.

The technician – who began work for the couple in June 2016 – confronted her employers and was told the camera was installed because they wanted to see couriers and patients coming and going.

The dental technician told the hearing that this seemed illogical to her as the camera was pointed at her desk and not at the office entrance.

She said her male boss called her ‘a stupid idiot’ for getting upset about the camera while his wife disclaimed all knowledge of its installation.

In her ruling and upholding the woman’s claim for unfair dismissal, WRC adjudication officer Máire Mulcahy rejected the employer’s argument that the camera was installed to protect the worker.

Ms Mulcahy said that no adequate reason had been put forward as to why the device was concealed.

Ms Mulcahy stated: ‘I find that the employer’s actions, though a onceoff, were sufficiently damaging to the relationship of trust to which both parties are entitled.’

Ms Mulcahy also stated that the WhatsApp messages strayed somewhat off course from the professional employer- employee relationship.

Ms Mulcahy asked: ‘If the camera was to protect her from intruders or unwelcome visitors, why did it need to be hidden? That is the most puzzling aspect of this. Why was it not positioned on a wall like most security devices? A device does not need to be covert to record unwelcome visitors or offer protection.’

The employee said that she was shocked at her employer’s reaction and the absence of an explanation as to why the camera was concealed.

The woman was claiming a loss of €6,000 and confirmed that she secured alternative work with a higher salary in March 2018.

In response, the employer told the hearing that the camera was installed to monitor the comings and goings of unidentified strangers as the employee would be by herself when they were away.

He stated that he regretted that he did not advise her of the installation and apologised to her. He offered many times to meet the worker, to engage a third party to see how she could continue to work with them.

He stated that the camera never functioned while he was on leave and he understood that the flashing red light meant it was on standby.

He stated that no images were captured of the complainant.