Firstly GDPR doesn't apply to photographs, it applies to sensitive personal data only.  This is defined in the guidance to GDPR which I keep telling people to read for themselves as it would solve many problems of this nature for them. 

Secondly I backed off from using photographs on our First Aider notices due to the simple fact that it takes such a lot of time and effort to maintain. Remember if you do then you maintain it!!

Not Data Protection however there can be messy issues associated with image rights particularly where the file is electronically held.

As stated they can be a nuisance to keep updated and the value to help staff or others identify first aiders can be adressed through other means.

I disagree about them being messy. What is messy about them? If someone leaves then you still have to remove their name from the list. They look professional and put a face to a name in big organisations or small from that matter. I always take the picture and put the expiry date underneath 

It helps me as I walk around site to see if people are coming close to their First Aid expiring. I’m unsure on whether you can force someone to do it but I can’t imagine why people would be against it. If some are willing and some are not, I’d still put the pictures up of those willing to participate. I’d also have a work with their managers and sell it that is a good visual and looks professional etc…

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Do they really want to be a first aider?

Agreed - I find it strange that they have volunteered, but do not "show willing" when it helps identify them. It seems to go against the spirit of such a role, hence my question whether there is something I'm missing in my understanding.

The "messy" part is personal image rights and copyright not the posters themselves.

Volunteering to be an FAAW is not a declaration by the employee they want to be a "poster boy/girl/other".

Can we please get beyond treating employees as chattles - we are still covered by EU derived employment law.

Edited by user 27 February 2020 20:00:55(UTC)  | Reason: We aren't Dickensian yet

People will often give a different, more official sounding reason such as "because of GDPR" instead of their real objection.

It's the equivalent of "because of health and safety" when the real reason is something else.

There could be many possible objections to their photo being on the poster.  As I've said, the one I've personally come across is that the photo is unflattering.  But there could be many other possible  reasons such as resentment at not being consulted or some other grievance which may not even be related to first aid.  The only way to find out is to ask them the right questions and listen to them.

Where ...., is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work (subject to any agreement to the contrary). The expression “in the course of employment” is not defined by the Act but in settling disputes the courts have typically had to decide whether the employee was working under a ‘contract of service’ (eg as an employee) or a ‘contract for services’ (eg as a freelancer or independent contractor).

Where a person works under a ‘contract for services’ he will usually retain copyright in any works he produces, unless there is a contractual agreement to the contrary.

An employer should keep careful records of which person(s) created the work for them and any contractual agreements which were in force. The period of copyright protection will usually still be linked to the date of the death of the creator(s) - that is the employee(s).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works

This ownership by the master also extends to every document, powerpoint, spreadsheet etc. an employee creates druing their employment.

Told you it was messy. ;-)

I think we have gone off track here. This has nothing to do with intellectual property rights or the (self-ill-defined common law on privacy. The person in question is not threating to sue the employer or take out an injunction. That’s a rich person’s game and this sort of stuff only applies to megastars and their sordid private lives not people on the forum. I have not issued any super injunctions recently preventing people discussing what I get upto in my shed!

My question is why the person is so resistant to having their status as a First aider publicised. Have they only signed up as a first aider because they get a bit more in the pay packet and when shove comes to push they are not interested?

maybe they just dont want their picture up, theres no law forcing them to... maybe its a simple as that.

Thank you all for your considered replies. This is not a copyright issue. From my perspective, a poster to aid in the identification and familiarisation of who the first aiders are in a particular area is key to accessing first aid provision. The photos are proposed for legitimate company business, and will not appear anywhere "off site" or in the public domain.

We cannot "colour code" uniforms/PPE/hats to highlight roles, as we have different requirements in different areas, so knowing "who's who" is really important in this environment.

I struggle to understand why a first aider wouldn't want to be seen and recognised, but will certainly investigate further to understand and hopefully rectify.

They would be more recognisable in colour coded or badged work wear/PPE than as a small photograph on a poster on a wall often walked past and rarely seen.

Absence scenario - a contractor memorises a particular face from your poster, has an injury and wanders around trying to locate a face that is not at site being at home, off sick, on holiday or a different shift.

Familiaristion should be part of any new starters induction when they are introduced to managers, supervisors and colleagues.

What about the propaganda value of such a board?

It demonstrates to employees and others that a) the organisation is serious about First Aid (and H&S) by appointing people as First Aiders and b) that the first aiders are just normal workers like yourself and you might be interested in joining them.

“ I wouldn't use them(photo-boards) because in most cases the name is enough most people know each other in work.”

Well that works if

1. You workplace is small enough and everybody has a different name.
2. It is very stable workforce with the same people working for years on end. If there is any significant turn over it will be more difficult to keep track of who is who.

Pictures are also prone to graffiti

On the subject, Dave from upstairs would like to point out his breasts are not that big, he only has a pink Mohican hairstyle on weekends in his own time, the pirate type eye patch was only temporary while the condition he would rather not speak about cleared up and since he got his new false teeth his smile is perfect. Therefore, no need to “correct” his picture again.

Agree with others a list is fine, people get to know who their first aider is anyway, unless a really big workforce with a very high turnover of people.

Originally Posted by: Messey

blimey what a fuss about nothing. 

Since you have not experienced (or have any interest in) this issue, have no constructive advice, nor any "time", why respond in such a manner?

Edited by user 05 March 2020 14:15:12(UTC)  | Reason: typo

Originally Posted by: knotty

Originally Posted by: Messey

blimey what a fuss about nothing. 

You're right - I'm very fortunate to be able to work on safety culture in my organisation. And as a seasoned and highly experienced safety professional, I am asking for a "second opinion" on an issue I have not come across before.

Since you have not experienced (or have any interest in) this issue, have no constructive advice, nor any "time", why respond in such a manner?

I was merely expressing an opinion - which is the aim of a discussion forums isnt it?

But as you have asked, the whole issue seemed to be of little consequence. If someone doesnt  want their photo displayed, dont do it and move on. To discuss data protection and privacy issues seems to be getting a bit bogged down in something that is not likely to improve the safety of a single individual, so why bother?.

I am pleased you have time to work on safety culture in your role (and a bit envious). Its very laudable. But almost forcing staff to have their photo on that board when they dont want it, doesnt seem like a great way to sell H&S in my book

For what its worth, Knotty, I believe photo boards are increadibly beneficial and the understanding of the benefits of such have not been fully considered by the detractors in this topic.

Regardless of the workplace, the effectiveness of safety communication is, in my opinion, the biggest single barrier to safety culture change in the modern era and some simple psychological principles can play a significant role that is often overlooked.

Using photos rather than a list of names more readily facilitates a mental shortcut for the retention or acknowledgement of this type of information. 

In time of crisis (accident, fire, etc) when rational faculties are adversely affected by the traumatic event, visual information is again far more likely to have an effect than written. 

Very few will stand and absorb information on any kind of signboard directly however perifiral retention of visual information is far more effective than written etc, etc, etc.

There is also a benefit in creating "buy-in" from the first aiders themselves as the display of their image creates a stronger connection with communication of their role than a simple list (for the reasons above).

Also a very simple study of printed advertising should show the benefit of images over written information when considering effective communication and culture change.

Some of the posters on this topic, may find a benefit in reading the 'Safety Behavior' article in the October 2019 edition of IOSH Magazine concerning the psychology of "Heuristics" and researching further around this subject.

As for the specific question asked, I have indeed come across this issue in my widespread use of this kind of communication.  Over the years I have found that overly pushing the issue with reluctant role holders is counterproductive and in these cases the use of a silhouette type image can be utalised.  In some cases, this silhouette can even persuade the reluctant through the 'Social Influence' principle as they dont want to be the odd one out.

Edited by user 06 March 2020 14:30:10(UTC)  | Reason: Additional text