From New Zealand -
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/got-it-tape-lessons-using-covert-recordings-weekend-review-gb-138034
Remember that there are arguments against the use of covert recordings which are neither intuitive nor to do with manners or morality:
Employees hoping to rely on covert recordings as a "smoking gun" in an employment dispute should heed a recent ruling of a UK employment watchdog.
Britain's Employment Appeal Tribuna refused Ms A Vaughan’s last-minute attempt to admit 39 hours of recordings she made between herself and managers and colleagues at the London Borough of Lewisham.
Ms Vaughan wanted to submit recordings, stored on an iPod, as evidence in the Employment Tribunal to support her discrimination claim, but the employment judge refused her application.
On appeal, the EAT held that the judge had been right to refuse the application since she had not transcribed the recordings or highlighted which aspects supported her allegations.
Although it referred generally to the practice of secret recordings as “very distasteful”, the EAT outlined that if a more focused request had been made, with tapes and transcripts, then it could have been permitted.
Useful lessons for New Zealanders
Employment lawyer Simon Lapthorne it is becoming more common for covert recordings to be produced in the Employment Relations Authority, usually by the employee as a “smoking gun” to catch the employer out.
While mobile phones had made it very easy to record meetings and conversations, New Zealand does not have formal guidance as to their use as evidence in employment disputes.
So the EAT's decision provides a useful indicator as to when a covert recording will be considered relevant and admissible - particularly because it had gone further in outlining procedural steps about providing transcripts in advance of the hearing.
“These recordings are often produced at the 11th hour as a smoking gun to ambush the other party without warning,” the senior associate at Simpson Grierson says.
“The UK decision is suggesting it is appropriate to provide transcripts in advance and give the other party the opportunity to transcribe it as well and review the evidence.”
The suggestion to have both sides transcribe the recordings is an interesting one, and one wonders whose version of the recording will be accepted - transcription not being the definitive task it is often assumed to be.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/got-it-tape-lessons-using-covert-recordings-weekend-review-gb-138034
Remember that there are arguments against the use of covert recordings which are neither intuitive nor to do with manners or morality:
Employees hoping to rely on covert recordings as a "smoking gun" in an employment dispute should heed a recent ruling of a UK employment watchdog.
Britain's Employment Appeal Tribuna refused Ms A Vaughan’s last-minute attempt to admit 39 hours of recordings she made between herself and managers and colleagues at the London Borough of Lewisham.
Ms Vaughan wanted to submit recordings, stored on an iPod, as evidence in the Employment Tribunal to support her discrimination claim, but the employment judge refused her application.
On appeal, the EAT held that the judge had been right to refuse the application since she had not transcribed the recordings or highlighted which aspects supported her allegations.
Although it referred generally to the practice of secret recordings as “very distasteful”, the EAT outlined that if a more focused request had been made, with tapes and transcripts, then it could have been permitted.
Useful lessons for New Zealanders
Employment lawyer Simon Lapthorne it is becoming more common for covert recordings to be produced in the Employment Relations Authority, usually by the employee as a “smoking gun” to catch the employer out.
While mobile phones had made it very easy to record meetings and conversations, New Zealand does not have formal guidance as to their use as evidence in employment disputes.
So the EAT's decision provides a useful indicator as to when a covert recording will be considered relevant and admissible - particularly because it had gone further in outlining procedural steps about providing transcripts in advance of the hearing.
“These recordings are often produced at the 11th hour as a smoking gun to ambush the other party without warning,” the senior associate at Simpson Grierson says.
“The UK decision is suggesting it is appropriate to provide transcripts in advance and give the other party the opportunity to transcribe it as well and review the evidence.”
The suggestion to have both sides transcribe the recordings is an interesting one, and one wonders whose version of the recording will be accepted - transcription not being the definitive task it is often assumed to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment