1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Covert recordings: “For the times they are a-changing”

Almost everyone carries around with them a recording device nowadays, in the form of a smartphone or wearable technology.  Where does this leave HR managers and employers in dealing with employees who ask (or don’t ask as the case may be!) to record meetings?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently handed down its judgment in the case of Phoenix House v. Stockman.

Ms Stockman (a finance employee) had secretly recorded a meeting with HR during which she was told that she would be disciplined for having earlier interrupted a meeting about allegations she had made against her line manager. Ultimately Ms Stockman was dismissed as a result of an irretrievable breakdown in relationships.  The secret recording only came to light during her subsequent tribunal claim.

Without going into the details of the other findings of the Employment Tribunal (ET), it was found that Ms Stockman did not make the covert recording to try to entrap the company managers, but only because she felt flustered at the time. The impact of this finding was that she was still found to have been unfairly dismissed, but the ET reduced the compensatory award by 10%.

Phoenix House appealed against the ET’s approach to the covert recording of the meeting.  Its position was that, had it known about the recording, it would have dismissed Ms Stockman for gross misconduct and that she should not be entitled to any compensation on that basis.

Ultimately the EAT agreed with the ET, finding that Ms Stockman had not recorded the meeting with the intention of snaring her employer or obtaining confidential information (she had recorded a single meeting concerned about her own position) and that the tribunal had made a legitimate assessment of these facts and reduced the compensation accordingly.

The EAT made some interesting comments around covert recordings more generally.

The accessibility of a recording device being the first observation: “Times have changed … it is now not uncommon to find that an employee has recorded a meeting without saying so.” The EAT said that the reason for the recording must always be considered – this reason will not always be sinister or to gain a dishonest advantage, but will be relevant and, occasionally, justifiable. Importantly, the EAT rejected the employer’s argument that covertly recording a meeting will necessarily undermine the trust and confidence between employer and employee.

The culpability of the employee must also be considered – the EAT suggested inexperience could lead to an employee recording a discussion completely innocently? What about the content of the recording? If a note of the meeting would be shared in any event, then perhaps there isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a problem. This is contrasted with a meeting during which confidential information or information about others is disclosed.

The EAT’s concluding remarks pointed out that rarely does “covert recording” appear on a list of instances of gross misconduct in a disciplinary procedure and that this might also be pertinent. Indeed, there was no mention in the disciplinary procedure used by Phoenix House of such misconduct (even by the time the case was being heard by the ET, as pointed out by the EAT).

Going forward the EAT suggested, practically speaking, that it would be good employment practice for an employee or employer to say if there is any intention to record a meeting, save in the most pressing of circumstances – and it will generally amount to misconduct not to do so.

Covert recordings: “For the times they are a-changing”

Magistrate who said same-sex adoption not in best interests of a child loses discrimination claims

A Christian magistrate who publicly disapproved of same-sex adoption has lost his claim for religious discrimination and victimisation.
Read more »
Magistrate who said same-sex adoption not in best interests of a child loses discrimination claims

Manifesting one’s beliefs vs inappropriately proselytising them – where is the line?

In Kuteh v. Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 818 the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the dismissal of a Christian nurse for repeatedly failing to follow reasonable management instructions not to initiate inappropriate religious conversations with patients was unfair.
Read more »
Manifesting one’s beliefs vs inappropriately proselytising them – where is the line?

Failure to offer appeal hearing amounts to unfair dismissal according to EAT

The appellant in the recent case of Radia v Jeffries International Limited, Mr Radia, was a Managing Director of a regulated financial services company. He had previously brought two claims against his employer. The Employment Tribunal's decision in the first claim criticised the credibility of his evidence and found him evasive. On receiving the judgement, Mr Radia was suspended by his employer pending a disciplinary. No investigation took place before the disciplinary hearing, which instead relied on the findings of the first Employment Tribunal. As he was a regulated person the employer decided that as a result of the Employment Tribunal's decision on Mr Radia's credibility, they could no longer employ him and consequently dismissed him for gross misconduct.
Read more »
Failure to offer appeal hearing amounts to unfair dismissal according to EAT

Is it automatically unfair to dismiss someone because they allege that they will be dismissed unfairly?

In Spaceman v. ISS Mediclean Ltd t/a ISS Facility Service Healthcare the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the circumstances in which an employee is dismissed for the automatically unfair reason of asserting infringement of a statutory right.
Read more »
Is it automatically unfair to dismiss someone because they allege that they will be dismissed unfairly?

Is it safe to dismiss an employee who is receiving long-term disability benefits?

The EAT has dealt a blow to employers, confirming that the purpose of permanent health insurance and similar schemes would be defeated if an employer could end entitlements under this type of scheme by dismissing the employee on grounds of capability. 
Read more »
Is it safe to dismiss an employee who is receiving long-term disability benefits?

Disciplinary investigations: Common sense and even-handedness should prevail

In the recent Employment Tribunal (ET) case of Ball v. First Essex Bus Limited, the claimant, a 60-year-old bus driver who suffers from diabetes, has been successful in his unfair dismissal claim. He persuaded an ET that his dismissal for being under the influence of cocaine whilst on duty was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The claimant had failed a random drug test.
Read more »
Disciplinary investigations: Common sense and even-handedness should prevail

Dismissal of pilot with anxiety-related sickness absences held to be procedurally unfair

In Matthew Guest v. Flybe Limited, the Birmingham Employment Tribunal considered whether the dismissal of a pilot who had various anxiety-related sickness absences was fair and found that it was not.
Read more »
Dismissal of pilot with anxiety-related sickness absences held to be procedurally unfair

Does giving notice amount to an unambiguous act of resignation from employment?

An employee giving notice does not necessarily amount to an unambiguous act of resignation from employment, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found in East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Levy.
Read more »
Does giving notice amount to an unambiguous act of resignation from employment?

Unfair Dismissal: extending the date of dismissal by the statutory notice period

The recent case of Lancaster & Duke v. Wileman is a useful reminder to employers that terminating an employee's employment in the week before they gain two years' continuous service may still enable an employee to claim that they have the requisite qualifying service to bring a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal.
Read more »
Unfair Dismissal: extending the date of dismissal by the statutory notice period