Carter, Antoinette (CCM) on 11 May 2004 at 18:12 said:-
> But ultimately, we are not talking about an issue of whether
> some prima-donna supermodel got caught out fibbing about her
> cocaine addiction; we're talking about millions of people
> being deprived of a public service on which they rely, and
> which costs London businesses millions of pounds in lost revenue.
I had thought the crux of the issue centred upon the management of the
organisation and how sickness can cause difficulties for organisational
management. E.g. High sickness levels or unable to provide sufficient
sickness cover.
That issue had somehow become refocused on the sickness of the individual
concerned rather than on organisational difficulties in coping with
sickness, leading to the disclosure of sensitive personal data about one
individual.
To make a lawful disclosure of sickness data an organisation would somehow
need to have facilitated their public disclosure of employees sickness data
within the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. How that may be achieved
does not yet seem to have been clarified.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Carter, Antoinette (CCM)
> Sent: 11 May 2004 18:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Publiction of Sickness Record
>
>
> I stand duly corrected on the facts - however, I don't think
> it actually changes my overall viewpoint. I think that if
> you apply a "balance of interests test" I think that the
> public had a right to know why they were being prevented from
> being able to go about their normal business. What should LU
> have told the Press when they enquired as to why the RMT were
> going on strike? Are you suggesting that they should have
> refused to disclose any details on the grounds that it would
> infringe on the data protection rights of a single
> individual? Or that the Press wouldn't have rooted out the
> details in some other way from somewhere? To take Tim's lead
> of citing an extreme case, should the Press not have
> published photographs of American soldiers leading naked
> Iraqi POWs on a lead because it might infringe on their
> privacy? Obviously, the main difference is that this man was
> found innocent of his misconduct charge, but then the Press
> never said he was guilty, they only reported on the facts.
>
> I don't deny that the individual concerned won't have
> appreciated the Press' intrusion; who would? I believe this
> poor man is a pawn in a PR chess game between the LU and the
> RMT, but I think both sides are happy to be playing their
> part. Why else would Bob Crowe make a point of giving the
> man a new squash racquet if not for the PR angle?
>
> But ultimately, we are not talking about an issue of whether
> some prima-donna supermodel got caught out fibbing about her
> cocaine addiction; we're talking about millions of people
> being deprived of a public service on which they rely, and
> which costs London businesses millions of pounds in lost revenue.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Hubert, Paul [STU]
> Sent: 11 May 2004 16:55
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Publiction of Sickness Record
>
> >I've certainly not seen any details in the press that a complaint has
> been
> made by either the individual concerned or his Union in
> relation to infringement of his data protection rights.
>
> I don't know if he's 'complained' in a formal sense but he
> was on the 'Today' programme this morning and complained
> about LU leaking his sickness record. So far as I was able to
> follow I believe that the RMT union have also objected
> because it wasn't relevant to the actual issue and because it
> was a public relations attack on him when they had lost the procedure.
>
> I would have thought that having your details dragged through
> the gutter by tabloid newspapers, and having their
> journalists and photographers probably dogging your
> footsteps, would necessarily have a significant adverse
> effect on all but the most hardened publicity 'addict'. It
> isn't true that 'only the guilty have anything to fear'.
>
> Paul
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|