 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Random Body and ‘Phone Searches at Grattan Plc
Grattan plc certainly suffered from losses due to theft, and was entitled by law to have a Stop and Search policy. I was always opposed in principle to random searches, and I tried to persuade Grattan plc to use other methods. However, before I resigned, I did offer to compromise on the subject of random searches. In a letter later used at the hearing, I wrote that
"Personally, I am prepared to accept the random searching of bags, e-mails and desks, as long as it does not become apparent that certain kinds of people are being singled out. Even frisking would reveal less private and personal information than the examination of ‘phones and pockets, as is currently demanded."
I was still not prepared to compromise on the subject of random body and mobile ‘phone searches for information.
It is important that the reader is not influenced by my personal interpretation of the most extreme aspects of Grattan plc’s random Stop and Search policy. Therefore, I shall use quotations from the decisions of the Tribunal and the EAT, etc.
The decision of the EAT contained the most succinct description and justification of Grattan’s Stop and Search policy, regarding those aspects relevant to this article. In paragraph 2 of their decision, the EAT stated that
"Grattan recognised the risk that employees in the call centre could record in mobile phones or on pieces of paper credit card details and account details given by customers phoning in to place orders; such cases had occurred and employees had been dismissed."
(There was no actual proof that mobile ‘phones had been used to steal information. [
details] )In the same paragraph, the EAT wrote
"The policy included random body searches and random searches of mobile phones."
In paragraph 31 of his statement, Mr Allan Lambert (the Otto UK Group Security Manager) stated that
"We have allowed in the policy for security staff to request a search of the data stored in a mobile ‘phone, but only with permission from the employee."
(Of course, any employee could refuse permission for any kind of search. However, there were consequences. In the policy dated August 2001 there is a paragraph headed "Refusal to be searched", starting with the text
"Any refusal to be searched will be dealt with as ‘a failure to conform with normal/agreed working practices and procedures’ under the disciplinary rules."
The same paragraph ends with
"If a disciplinary hearing is arranged and the employee is found to have breached the Company’s rules and procedures then a warning may be given or where the employee has previous live warnings on record (whether for breach of this policy or otherwise) the employee may be dismissed.")
When I was stopped by security guards, Grattan’s representatives recorded that I was "stopped randomly" for a body search, that "security detained him" and that
"David said that he was aware of the approach, but refused to be searched as we may view confidential information on him (e.g. credit card numbers). GF
(Graham Fish, of Grattan plc’s HR Dept) stated that we were not interested in that sort of information (the security team) and that we are searching in this way to try to avoid stock and other company confidential information, etc. going out of the business."(At the time, I was not entirely comforted by the idea that all private security guards are on too high a plane of enlightenment to be interested in any private and personal information that they might see, while searching at random for "company confidential information.")
In paragraph 7 of their "DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW", the Tribunal wrote
"In respect of the body searches, we understood and understand, following today’s hearing, Mr Trotter to refer to the emptying of pockets and production for inspection of letters with writing on them."
The reader should now understand the most extreme aspects of the matter to which the Tribunal was referring when, in paragraph 39 of their decision, they found that
"In our view, the employer was justified in introducing this policy",
that
"…we do not consider that there was anything unreasonable in the introduction of this policy or its content"
and
"Such policies are common throughout industry…"
Of course, data stored on mobile ‘phones are more likely to be private and personal text messages than stolen credit card details. Pieces of paper in pockets may also contain private information. When I gave serious thought to its consequences, I found it difficult to come to terms with Grattan’s policy. I have since changed my mind.