Cited by 4Digitalization, Law, and RegulationLegal and Labor StudiesOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

Insight or Intrusion? Correlating Routinely Collected Employee Data with Health Risk

Open access
Taylor, Mark J., Prictor, Megan·2019·Social Sciences

Abstract

The volume, variety and velocity of data available to companies about their employees is already significant and likely to increase. Employers hold data about employees that could be used to explore the relationship between workplace practice in their organisation and risks to employee health. However, there is significant uncertainty about whether employers subject to English law are permitted to use this data for this purpose, and even whether they may be under a legal obligation to do so. In this article, the question of whether employers are legally permitted or legally obliged to use employee data to identify associations between workplace practice and risk to employee health is answered through an analysis of two spheres of English Law: data protection law, and health and safety law. The authors establish a hypothetical case study concerning a company that wishes to use employee data in this way, to illuminate a set of detailed legal issues. In particular, the question of whether a reasonable and prudent employer is under an obligation under health and safety law to use the data and analytic tools at his or her disposal to assess risk and inform his or her actions is considered. Also addressed is the question of whether such processing would satisfy the data protection law principles of “lawful, fair, and transparent” processing and that of “purpose limitation”. A complex picture emerges. The analysis reveals that data protection legislation may not support a trend towards the re-use of employee data to enhance workplace health and safety; nor is there currently a clear mandate that responsible employers use data in this way. The line between useful insight into workplace practices and intrusion into employees’ privacy remains blurred.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/socsci8100291

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Aloisi, Antonio, and Elena Gramano. 2019. Artificial Intelligence is Watching You at Work. Digital Surveillance, Employee Monitoring and Regulatory Issues in the EU Context. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal. forthcoming. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3399548 (accessed on 15 October 2019).
  2. Associated Press. 2001. Burlington Northern Settles Suit Over Genetic Testing. The New York Times, April 19.
  3. Taylor, Mark J. 2015. R v Department of Health, ex parte Source Informatics [1999]. In Landmark Cases in Medical Law. Edited by Jonathan Herring and Jesse Wall. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  4. Tredinnick, Luke, and Claire Laybats. 2019. Workplace Surveillance. Business Information Review 36: 50-52.
  5. Vidal-Hall & Ors v Google Inc. 2014. EWHC 13 (QB). pp. 68-70. Available online: https://www.5rb.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/01/Vidal-Hall-v-Google.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taylor, M. J., & Prictor, M.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Mark J.
Venue
Social Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-10-16
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
291
ISSN
2076-0760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981080163
Cited by
4
References
11
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
employee data, workplace health and safety, data protection law, health and safety legislation, employee privacy, purpose limitation, employer obligations, occupational risk assessment, English law

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review