Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
thunderchild  
#1 Posted : 11 May 2018 08:09:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

I will be starting from next week conducting random safety audits around my site. One of my operatives has raised to his manager the issue of photographs and his data protection rights. This operative also thinks I pick on him as I keep having to chat with his manager as he's never got his PPE on! Its a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now I suspect that he has realised that when I conduct my audit and take photographs of people flaunting the PPE rule (it won’t just be him) and he doesn’t like that and has stated that I am not allowed to do it.

Now my understanding is that I am allowed to do this under H&S and I am not taking any personal details just his photo for the audit report.

Am I right? can I take the photo? It would be just nice if he thought "I'll just wear my PPE instead" then there would be no issue but he's kinda missing that point completely. *rolls eyes*

Advice appreciated oh wise ones!

Hsquared14  
#2 Posted : 11 May 2018 08:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

So far as I know GDPR applies to personal information - I don't recall anything about photographs in the guidance.  However, what I would do in your situation is to use the photos but blank out the faces of the people that way you are not identifying any particular person - of course you must remember not to use people's names in the text of the report.

If this person is a persistent offender have you explored with him why he doesn't wear his PPE and why so many other people are also flouting the rules?  You haven't said what the PPE consists of but I would go back to basics and examine whether the PPE is necessary, suitable, and reasonable for the work.  Is there a comfort issue?  Does one piece of PPE clash with another? 

There is more to this than one person's reluctance to be photographed.

KieranD  
#3 Posted : 11 May 2018 09:11:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
KieranD

Thunderchild

Only yesterday evening I attended a meeting of the London Central branch of the CIPD where a solicitor who has specialised in the DPA discussed questions of the kind you raise.

Apart from issues about criminal records and harassment, which call for specail care, the general principle was to record what can be justified on grounds of effective management without unlawful discritmination.  The solicitor advised checking with the website of the ICO in so far as posssible.

She was quite frank that nobody has a golden rule on what is absolutely right in every situation and also that the ICO will be overwhelmed with enquiries about implementation.

As a safety/health practitioner, the root issue has to be your assessment of what is justifiable on grounds of safeguarding employees (and customers and the public where appropriate).  Keeping calm and courteous in the face of objections is advisable yet part of the social skill of the 'new' OSH practitioner is a blend of firmness and affiliative good humour, i.e. genuine humour that attempts to build relationshps without what is consensually viewed as offensive.

thunderchild  
#4 Posted : 11 May 2018 09:14:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14 Go to Quoted Post

So far as I know GDPR applies to personal information - I don't recall anything about photographs in the guidance.  However, what I would do in your situation is to use the photos but blank out the faces of the people that way you are not identifying any particular person - of course you must remember not to use people's names in the text of the report.

If this person is a persistent offender have you explored with him why he doesn't wear his PPE and why so many other people are also flouting the rules?  You haven't said what the PPE consists of but I would go back to basics and examine whether the PPE is necessary, suitable, and reasonable for the work.  Is there a comfort issue?  Does one piece of PPE clash with another? 

There is more to this than one person's reluctance to be photographed.

Yes I have had several conversations with him, as has his manager. He is required to wear glasses, hearing and facemasks. He has a tendancy to not bothere with the hearing full stop and wear his glassess on the top of his hean and his face mask around his chin no matter what he is doing! All PPE works fine he's just never had someone enforce the rules like I do.

thunderchild  
#5 Posted : 11 May 2018 09:19:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

Thank you, you confirmed what I thought. Photo only, no names, address etc. no other data.

Yes the photograph will be soley used as visual evidence that people are not wearing PPE.

It is also 100% his reluctance to have photographic evidence that he is flouting the rules.

I am sure when I do my moring safety walk he will have a discussion with me about this and will not believe a word I say. Hopefully one photo of him and it will be the last, he will then start to play by the rules which is at the end of the day all I want.

Have a good day and weekend all!

Jackson43278  
#6 Posted : 11 May 2018 09:41:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jackson43278

It's also worth keeping a a key bit of GDPR ready to use as it can come in handy, namely that GDPR does not prohibit collection of personal data without consent, especially where data is being colelcted for regulatory compliance. GDPR doesn't say consent is always needed in every case. So for compliance with the PPE Regs, consent for obtaining an individual's data is not required, whether they are at work or not. I suspect that us H&S types are going to spend a lot of time explaining that to recalcitrant employees over the next couple of months and years.

thanks 2 users thanked Jackson43278 for this useful post.
chris42 on 11/05/2018(UTC), nic168 on 22/05/2018(UTC)
chris42  
#7 Posted : 11 May 2018 09:43:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Once you have done all the nice things noted by Hsquared14, you get the manager supposedly responsible for this person and make them do the walk with you. The person should then get a warning by their manager. The next time start the formal disciplinary (two people to corroborate lack of adherence to company safety rules, no need for any photo!)

Sorry but middle managers should take on board their responsibility for H&S, If they fail to do their duty then they don’t deserve to be a manager in my book. H&S is not an add on to managers remit, it is part for it always.

THE GDPR or its predecessor was not intended for this IMHO

thanks 2 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
lorna on 11/05/2018(UTC), A Kurdziel on 11/05/2018(UTC)
O'Donnell54548  
#8 Posted : 11 May 2018 09:44:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

Thunderchild, why do you feel that your audits require photographic evidence? What do you hope to achieve by producing images of employees not folowing the rules that you cannot achieve without the photos? Is this an attempt to improve H&S performance, if so how are you going to use these images without souring your relationship with managers/operatives who will obviously only see the negatives of your actions, and who are you producing these images for? and what do you want them to do with this information/proof "rolls eyes"? 

Seriously IMHO you should reconsider this course of action.

thunderchild  
#9 Posted : 11 May 2018 09:53:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548 Go to Quoted Post

Thunderchild, why do you feel that your audits require photographic evidence? What do you hope to achieve by producing images of employees not folowing the rules that you cannot achieve without the photos? Is this an attempt to improve H&S performance, if so how are you going to use these images without souring your relationship with managers/operatives who will obviously only see the negatives of your actions, and who are you producing these images for? and what do you want them to do with this information/proof "rolls eyes"? 

Seriously IMHO you should reconsider this course of action.

The opertaive has been engaged with several times, the managers have been engaged with several times. Its not working. I will now be doing a formal audit (not just PPE) that with go to the Ops director for him to deal with.

Most of the people I have engaged with after discussion have seen my point and what I want to do and they have willing complied but there are a very few who still will not. I am not a manager, I am also female in a male dominated factory (there is 1 other permamnet female on the shop floor) so theve very few do not respect what I do, say, me as an individual or my job title (I'm not a manager so in their eyes I have no autthority).

There has been no proper H&S on this site fr a while (it was a dual role before me and a 6 month gap between me and my predecessor), the rules were not enforced and now I am trying to do that there is the few that haven't had to do it before so wont do it now.

The audits with the evidence will also (I pray) show an improvement. I am hoping that in a few short weeks I will be at the point where I am not taking photos of anyone as they will all be doing as they are supposed to in accordance with their risk assessment.

O'Donnell54548  
#10 Posted : 11 May 2018 10:13:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

Originally Posted by: thunderchild Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548 Go to Quoted Post

Thunderchild, why do you feel that your audits require photographic evidence? What do you hope to achieve by producing images of employees not folowing the rules that you cannot achieve without the photos? Is this an attempt to improve H&S performance, if so how are you going to use these images without souring your relationship with managers/operatives who will obviously only see the negatives of your actions, and who are you producing these images for? and what do you want them to do with this information/proof "rolls eyes"? 

Seriously IMHO you should reconsider this course of action.

The opertaive has been engaged with several times, the managers have been engaged with several times. Its not working. I will now be doing a formal audit (not just PPE) that with go to the Ops director for him to deal with.

Most of the people I have engaged with after discussion have seen my point and what I want to do and they have willing complied but there are a very few who still will not. I am not a manager, I am also female in a male dominated factory (there is 1 other permamnet female on the shop floor) so theve very few do not respect what I do, say, me as an individual or my job title (I'm not a manager so in their eyes I have no autthority).

There has been no proper H&S on this site fr a while (it was a dual role before me and a 6 month gap between me and my predecessor), the rules were not enforced and now I am trying to do that there is the few that haven't had to do it before so wont do it now.

The audits with the evidence will also (I pray) show an improvement. I am hoping that in a few short weeks I will be at the point where I am not taking photos of anyone as they will all be doing as they are supposed to in accordance with their risk assessment.

Sorry Thunderchild but you have not answered any of my questions, and I do not feel that your personal position (as described by you) will see any improvement as a result of the strategy you are about to undertake. If you seriously think that your Ops Director is not aware of what is going on, and has not already had Managers beating a path to his door with complaints about your approach, then you need to think again. All you are going to achieve is to drive bad practice underground.  

KieranD  
#11 Posted : 11 May 2018 10:31:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
KieranD

Thunderchild

Sometimes other professional groups develop smart good practices which are relevent to OSH

I've just been viewing a video on both the GDPR and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations by a director of a leading Anglo-German electronic marketing firm.  I've no commercial link with them, other than a recgular viewer of their promotions.  

The company is called Red Eye and they're at www.redeye.co.uk.  There's a choice of videos which can be viewed free of charge

corrinaevans  
#12 Posted : 11 May 2018 10:53:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
corrinaevans

I have PMd you.

Corrina

thunderchild  
#13 Posted : 11 May 2018 10:56:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: thunderchild Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548 Go to Quoted Post

Thunderchild, why do you feel that your audits require photographic evidence? What do you hope to achieve by producing images of employees not folowing the rules that you cannot achieve without the photos? Is this an attempt to improve H&S performance, if so how are you going to use these images without souring your relationship with managers/operatives who will obviously only see the negatives of your actions, and who are you producing these images for? and what do you want them to do with this information/proof "rolls eyes"? 

Seriously IMHO you should reconsider this course of action.

The opertaive has been engaged with several times, the managers have been engaged with several times. Its not working. I will now be doing a formal audit (not just PPE) that with go to the Ops director for him to deal with.

Most of the people I have engaged with after discussion have seen my point and what I want to do and they have willing complied but there are a very few who still will not. I am not a manager, I am also female in a male dominated factory (there is 1 other permamnet female on the shop floor) so theve very few do not respect what I do, say, me as an individual or my job title (I'm not a manager so in their eyes I have no autthority).

There has been no proper H&S on this site fr a while (it was a dual role before me and a 6 month gap between me and my predecessor), the rules were not enforced and now I am trying to do that there is the few that haven't had to do it before so wont do it now.

The audits with the evidence will also (I pray) show an improvement. I am hoping that in a few short weeks I will be at the point where I am not taking photos of anyone as they will all be doing as they are supposed to in accordance with their risk assessment.

Sorry Thunderchild but you have not answered any of my questions, and I do not feel that your personal position (as described by you) will see any improvement as a result of the strategy you are about to undertake. If you seriously think that your Ops Director is not aware of what is going on, and has not already had Managers beating a path to his door with complaints about your approach, then you need to think again. All you are going to achieve is to drive bad practice underground.  

We will agree to disagree.

peter gotch  
#14 Posted : 11 May 2018 11:36:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Thunderchild

If you did a joint audit with the relevant line manager with them counter-signing audit report, there would be no need for photos (though I recognise that photos could help to illustrate).

Hsquared14  
#15 Posted : 11 May 2018 12:21:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

O'Donnel I think you are being rather unfair here, you are making pronouncements without any real idea of how Thunderchild undertakes her duties.  I think photographic evidence if used in the right way can be very powerful, without the photographs then senior managers can just say "oh she is on her soapbox about this again"  with photographs there is something that proves the point and backs up what has previously just been anecdotal.  Maybe not take such a judgemental approach next time?

O'Donnell54548  
#16 Posted : 11 May 2018 12:58:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14 Go to Quoted Post

O'Donnel I think you are being rather unfair here, you are making pronouncements without any real idea of how Thunderchild undertakes her duties.  I think photographic evidence if used in the right way can be very powerful, without the photographs then senior managers can just say "oh she is on her soapbox about this again"  with photographs there is something that proves the point and backs up what has previously just been anecdotal.  Maybe not take such a judgemental approach next time?

If you ask for advice on these forums then you need to be prepared to get some you do not agree with, or like, a point that it appears Thunderchild at least has accepted. If you get yourself into a position where you need to get photographic evidence to resolve confrontation then, IMHO, you need to seriously look at how you go about your job.    

Kate  
#17 Posted : 11 May 2018 13:15:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

It should be possible though to question someone's approach in a more constructive and tactful way.  The appearance of hostility or contempt is likely to turn people off considering advice, however well-intentioned and however good that advice may be.

PS I can't resist sharing my Captcha for this post: f5ve

A Kurdziel  
#18 Posted : 11 May 2018 13:49:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I am not entirely convinced that taking photos of individuals is necessarily the best way to “prove” that they have failed to follow PPE requirements. What do you do with photos? Sticking them up on a “wall of shame” is unacceptable but if you had large organisation, where you don’t necessarily know everybody by name it might be acceptable take pictures of bad practice and then use them to track the culprits down later.

As said permission for the subject for collecting and using the data is a nice to have but if you do not have permission, you can justify it by applying one of the following:

  1. The data held is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract.
  2. The data held is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject, eg Noise at Work Reg 8 (2)(b) Every employee shall make full and proper use of personal hearing protectors provided to him by his employer etc.
  3. The data held is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person eg again it might be justifiable.

Finally as the guy is a known repeat offender, why haven’t you gone down a disciplinary route?   

O'Donnell54548  
#19 Posted : 11 May 2018 13:50:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

Originally Posted by: Kate Go to Quoted Post

It should be possible though to question someone's approach in a more constructive and tactful way.  The appearance of hostility or contempt is likely to turn people off considering advice, however well-intentioned and however good that advice may be.

PS I can't resist sharing my Captcha for this post: f5ve

OK Kate I will try to be more tactful and constructive. Thunderchild you are not a manager, stop trying to be one. You have no authority, stop trying to act like you have. As an advisor make your observations and recommendations record these and discuss with the managers how you can help them to improve H&S in their areas of responsibility. Please, thank you :)   

imwaldra  
#20 Posted : 11 May 2018 14:04:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
imwaldra

Just a brief technical comment to point out that these activities are NOT actually audits (as you are not independant), but workplace monitoring. And while OSH advisors should carry out such monitoring, so should line personnel, including supervisors and managers. So I agree with those who've suggested a joint activity, which usually works pretty well, and probably photos would add little credibility to a joint report about what was observed. If you use photos as part of monitoring activities, it's always better to have have of good pratices as well as non-compliances, as that removes inferences that you are biassed in some way.

Charlie Brown  
#21 Posted : 12 May 2018 22:49:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Charlie Brown

When you put it like that there is some good advise here.

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Kate Go to Quoted Post

It should be possible though to question someone's approach in a more constructive and tactful way.  The appearance of hostility or contempt is likely to turn people off considering advice, however well-intentioned and however good that advice may be.

PS I can't resist sharing my Captcha for this post: f5ve

OK Kate I will try to be more tactful and constructive. Thunderchild you are not a manager, stop trying to be one. You have no authority, stop trying to act like you have. As an advisor make your observations and recommendations record these and discuss with the managers how you can help them to improve H&S in their areas of responsibility. Please, thank you :)   

johnmurray  
#22 Posted : 13 May 2018 07:56:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

I am not entirely convinced that taking photos of individuals is necessarily the best way to “prove” that they have failed to follow PPE requirements. What do you do with photos? Sticking them up on a “wall of shame” is unacceptable but if you had large organisation, where you don’t necessarily know everybody by name it might be acceptable take pictures of bad practice and then use them to track the culprits down later.

As said permission for the subject for collecting and using the data is a nice to have but if you do not have permission, you can justify it by applying one of the following:

  1. The data held is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract.
  2. The data held is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject, eg Noise at Work Reg 8 (2)(b) Every employee shall make full and proper use of personal hearing protectors provided to him by his employer etc.
  3. The data held is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person eg again it might be justifiable.

Finally as the guy is a known repeat offender, why haven’t you gone down a disciplinary route?   

Probably because, as in many cases, the PPE is protection-of-first-resort, instead of being the final step in the process.

Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.