Employers and telecommuting staff must walk the fine line between trust, surveillance and micromanagement, experts say, in the new era of remote working.
Their comments come days after the British Columbia Civil Disputes Tribunal ordered an accountant to pay her former employer more than $2,600 after tracking software showed she engaged in “time theft” while working at home.
The worker approached the tribunal alleging that she was dismissed without reason.
Sandra Robinson, an organizational psychologist and professor at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business, says offering flexibility to ensure a happy workforce is a key reason employers continue with remote or hybrid work arrangements long after the abolition of pandemic restrictions.
Still, Robinson warns that some tools that allow employers to monitor how their employees spend their time while working from home, such as software that continuously tracks a worker’s computer activity, can “backfire” by undermining trust. .
“One of the things I tell managers is, you know, one of the best ways to build trust is by trusting, that trust is reciprocated,” she says.
She says that research shows that the less trust an employee feels, the lower their sense of responsibility towards their work.
Seniors generally don’t like to be constantly monitored, so computer tracking software can cause unnecessary stress or resistance among staff, Robinson adds.
Observing people working from home can also create unrealistic standards that aren’t even maintained in many office environments.
“Usually you don’t have someone controlling what you do, do you? People are talking at the water cooler, going to the bathroom, lost in thought.”
Research shows that people in many occupations aren’t always “active,” doing measurable work for eight or more hours without a break, even in the office, Robinson says.
“Our brains can only function so much, so we actually end up maybe raising standards that don’t even exist in the live workplace because we want people to work like robots and only pay them when they ‘really’ do a job?”
There are many other signals that someone is not up to speed, says Robinson, who suggests that surveillance software can be used as a last resort.
A British Columbia tribunal decision issued Wednesday shows the accountant has filed a $5,000 claim for unpaid wages and benefits, arguing she was fired without cause last March.
But the employer, Reach CPA Inc., filed a counterclaim for wages and a portion of the advance it paid, saying data from the software showed a 50-hour discrepancy between her schedules and a month’s computer activity.
“Theft of time in the employment context is regarded as a very serious form of misconduct,” tribunal member Megan Stewart wrote in the decision.
Trust and honesty are essential, especially in a telecommuting environment, it says.
The woman’s misconduct led to an “irreparable breakdown in her employment relationship with Reach”, Stewart said, finding her dismissal proportionate.
Vancouver lawyer Shafiq Bhaloo, who specializes in labor and employment law, also says the case is serious because submitting false hours amounts to fraud.
“The act itself was serious enough to breach that duty of honesty that the employee has in his relationship with the employer, and trust was breached. There’s a rupture in that relationship, and it’s not … really fixable in this particular case,” says Bhalu, an associate professor at Simon Fraser University’s Beedie School of Business.
Still, Bhalloo doesn’t believe the case will open a floodgate of employers suing employees for time theft.
The woman’s contrivance sets her case apart from other activities, such as making a personal call during business hours, he says.
“I work from home, I might have a pet that might need my attention for a moment or two. I may receive a personal call that comes through the home line. I might have a gardener who needs instructions or a postman who comes to the door and I take a break that I wouldn’t otherwise take if I was in the office,” he says.
Such activities are not grounds for dismissal, he says, unless they become habitual and the employee heeds warnings to correct their behavior.
Canadian law is still in its “developing stage” when it comes to handling home-work disputes, he says, and context will be key in court.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published on January 15, 2023.
Add Comment