Excessive monitoring of employees on CCTV amounts to workplace harassment, says FOSPAH

ISLAMABAD (Rana Farrukh Saeed): The Federal Ombudsperson for Protection Against Harassment (FOSPAH) has said in its decision that excessive CCTV surveillance of employees in the workplace amounts to harassment.

In a case submitted to FOSPAH, the complainant took the stand in her harassment petition against Yashal English House Chief Executive Azhar Abbas that she was continuously harassed during her employment; neither was she given an appointment letter, nor was she informed about the terms and conditions of the job.

The accused showed her CCTV footage on her mobile and said that he was constantly monitoring her. The accused made unwanted sexual advances, offered to take her to Islamabad, and leave her home.

She was not even given leave, and unreasonable work requirements were imposed. He called the office and abused me, made baseless allegations, and used abusive and harassing language.

When a formal harassment notice was sent in January, my employment was terminated, and my salary was also withheld. In his defense, Azhar Abbas said that the complainant was appointed as a student counselor and was on a probation period of 3 to 6 months.

Due to the complainant’s indiscipline and poor performance, he was given a final warning and terminated for misbehaving with the CEO.

The complainant refused to accept the dismissal letter and applied for 20 days of leave, which was rejected. The Federal Ombudsman wrote in his decision that the evidence regarding additional work and leave was insufficient.

There was no clear evidence on the January 24 incident. Regarding CCTV surveillance, it was proven that the accused targeted the complainant and also sent the footage, which has given evidence of psychological pressure and harassment.

Judicial precedents (European Court, Canadian, referring to cases etc.), it is hold that excessive or targeted surveillance falls under the category of harassment.

The accused is imposed a minor punishment (reprimand). In addition, they are ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the complainant.