In City and Council of Swansea v Gayle, the Council started to conduct covert video surveillance on Gayle following information received from two co-workers that he had been seen playing squash at a sports centre on 29 July and 26 August 2010, when he should have been working. The surveillance confirmed that he subsequently played squash at the sports centre on five successive Thursdays at times when he was claiming to have been at work.
The EAT upheld the employer’s appeal against the tribunal’s decision that the dismissal had been unfair because the investigation had been ‘too thorough’ and the use of covert surveillance breached human rights. First, when considering the scope of the investigation, it is never likely, if ever it could be, that an investigation will be held unreasonable because it is too thorough. Secondly, Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights, the right to respect for private and family life, was never engaged. The photography was of Gayle outside the sports centre, in a public place. In addition, Gayle “was a fraudster”; he was engaged in his own affairs while being paid by his employer and a person in such circumstances can have no reasonable expectation that their conduct is entitled to privacy.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
