85 / 116
E L E C T R I C A L CO N N E C T I O N
A U T UMN 2 0 17
8 5
time without being aware of it. Saying
the word ‘shit’ or using words such
as ‘pissed off’ would be considered by
most to be fairly mild swearing. Even
the word ‘f*ck’ may be considered
acceptable in some workplaces.
However, you’d be unlikely to use such
language with a new client whom you’ve
never met before. It’s all about context.
All of this raises a dilemma for
employers: as we have seen, the law
takes a flexible approach to workplace
language. It does not require you to
“sanitise” the language used by your
employees beyond what is considered
normal in your workplace. Indeed, any
attempt to do so is likely to be unpopular
with your workforce.
However, if you are serious about
protecting your business from risk,
you may need to apply a different
or a higher standard than that
required by the law. The key here is
reputational risk: you need to set your
organisation’s standards of conduct
at a level that reflects how you want
your organisation to be perceived. This
includes you, your employees, your
customers, and your competitors.
We see this dilemma being played
out in the media almost every week:
what one person believes to be
harmless workplace banter is often
reported in the media as evidence of
an organisational culture of bullying or
harassment. Regardless of who is right
or wrong, the reputational damage is
irrevocable. The larger your business
– or your aspirations – the greater the
weight which needs to be placed on
reputational considerations.
So, consider these questions when
drafting your Code of Conduct: what
are the values you wish to foster in
your business? What are the risks? And
most importantly, what stands up to a
‘commonsense’ test of behaviour?
No-one is going to judge your
organisation harshly because someone
let slip the F bomb after dropping a
heavy tool on their foot. But if they are
habitually using the same language to
abuse junior staff members, that could
be a completely different story.
Context and commonsense are
paramount. They’re the key to protecting
your business – and your reputation.
It’s a familiar sight in any public
space – that ever-present black dome
suspended from the ceiling, a single
red light blinking away somewhere in
the premises.
We’ve become accustomed to security
cameras operating in public places
and increasingly, they’re becoming
part of the workplace too. Contrary to
popular belief, video surveillance is
not just for ‘spying’ on employees: if
you have a fleet of vehicles on the road,
or if you have third parties – suppliers
or contractors for example – entering
your worksite, camera footage can
potentially provide crucial evidence to
protect your business from a claim if an
accident or an injury occurs. Depending
on who is at fault, having surveillance
cameras in place are the ultimate ‘cover
your arse’ safeguard.
But cameras will always generate
paranoia of the ‘Big Brother’ variety and
if you intend to go down the surveillance
path, you need to be prepared for
resistance from employees – and
importantly, you need to operate within
the confines of the law.
So is video surveillance actually
legal? Unfortunately there is no black
and white answer on this point. This
issue falls under state jurisdiction,
which means that different laws apply
according to your location. NSW,
for example, has strict laws which
require the consent of the majority
of employees before cameras can be
installed. The cameras need to be
visible and their presence flagged with
warning signs. Similar laws also exist in
the ACT, but no other state has specific
laws relating to workplace surveillance.
Keep in mind that video surveillance
is a separate issue from recording
actual conversations within the
workplace. As a general rule, you
need permission from a party to the
conversation before doing this, although
this permission can be implied – for
example, if you’ve plonked a digital
recording device in the middle of a table
at a meeting, your team should take this
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING