A street cleaner who started wearing his own body worn camera says he’s been threatened with the sack unless he takes it off.
Terry Gullen started wearing the camera as a precaution against being assaulted when working in the city centre in the early hours of the morning.
In 2021, fellow street cleaner Darren Hoad was left seriously injured after being attacked by a teenage girl in Pavilion Gardens.
Mr Gullen has provided Brighton and Hove News with a risk assessment carried out in the wake of that attack which stated street cleaners would be given body worn cameras – but none have ever been supplied.
Now, he’s been told he has to stop wearing his for data protection reasons – even though the council has issued them to other workers such as traffic wardens.
Mr Gullen said: “I was called in by my manager and he’s told me that I have to take off my camera or it would be a disciplinary offence.
“It’s because of data protection. If members of the public wanted to see the footage, we would have to supply it.
“I only recorded when I think I am going to be attacked, and the footage goes straight to the police. They’ve advised me to wear it.
“I have only ever needed to use it a few times when I have been attacked in the street at work.
“When I have called the police, every time the police ask for evidence of me being attacked and I have showed them. The police say it’s lucky I had evidence.
“There’s other members of staff who are wearing bodycams and I have asked them if they have been pulled up about it, but they haven’t.
“We are frontline workers and we start at 5 in the morning, esepcially at the weekend, there are loads of aggressive drunk people about.
“I’m wearing the camera for my safey and other people’s safety and I have told them this and they’re not listening.”
Mr Gullen, who has worked for Cityclean, the council’s waste management service, for nine years, said he had been wearing the camera for about a year.
He said as well as random attacks from members of the public, he was also wary of being approached by a man who had been given a restraining order in connection with his partner.
A council spokesman said: “We do not comment on individual cases.
“As a responsible employer, we carry out risk assessments and put in place appropriate measures for staff who could be at risk from members of the public. For example, all our street cleaners have two-way radios with emergency alarms which are closely monitored.
“Body worn cameras do have their place, but we also have to balance their use as a safety and evidence gathering device against the need to protect the privacy of colleagues and residents.
“Staff in some enforcement roles where there is a higher risk and a need to gather evidence do have access to body worn cameras, but our street cleaning staff are not issued with them.
“We take the safety and wellbeing of all our staff incredibly seriously and suitable measures are in place across the council to ensure our staff are safe while at work.
“This includes our hard-working street cleaners who play such a vital role in keeping our city looking its best.”
The council does not care about their workers or safety of their workers .
The manager’s just pick on their workers
Just poor management
You can reported in A public place !!!
Good on your for bring this to people Attention.
It’s not right to Bully Staff and to video them working so you can show that they have done their work. Surely you can’t do that without their permission. So how wearing a body camera any different..
As your workers work front line being Abused by the public and your sitting in your offices all safe..
I don’t understand the data concern. Any FOI request would relate to council information. This isn’t. It’s filming using privately owned equipment in a public area. Or is the council saying that we can put FOI requests in and see anything on staff private phones?!
I think I wider review is needed so this staff member feels safe, but in the meantime I can’t see any issue with them legally filming on their own recorder, just as they could on their own phone
I suspect CityClean doesn’t have the appropriate elements in their GDPR and a special body worn camera policy and FOI process for aforementioned footage captured in place.
That’ll make them reluctant straight away. Although, maybe it should be a conversation that is more along the lines of exploring what it would mean to get them in a position paperwork-wise to be able to allow this.
Organic usage of equipment like this should highlight a fear of safety within the workplace, and that the employers legal duty to address this is clear.
Hmm. There is clear evidence of this particular individual not feeling safe at his workplace. His reasoning for wanting a body-worn camera, that only records manually, is a valid one, having been attacked previously as stated in this article. I note most of us carry this technology with us 95% of the time in the form of smartphones anyway.
There is a clear legal duty on employers to ensure that employees are kept safe at the workplace. The public space can be dangerous, and it’s not unusual to have recording devices in these public spaces as a preventative deterrent and legal protection, such as dashcams, video doorbells, and CCTV.
Rather than an aggressive stance of going down a disciplinary route, and risking legal recourse, maybe this should trigger a review of how workers on a route are kept safe, such as implementing cameras on the vehicles, or providing company-issued cameras under policy, for example.
so when does the council begin the ban on dashcams ??
There is no data protection issue. People are free to photography and video in public spaces.
Private spaces may have their own ‘house rules’ …
The company would need the relevant policies in place for their usage, how to handle a data access request, and GDPR considerations, but certainly not a difficult one.
I think the street cleaners should have a body camera so they have evidence of been attacked and it could take ages for police to get through city center cctv if the have a body camera it saves time on getting the evidence when they have it in them it all so sound like the council don’t prioritise there staff with safety at work if so they would be in court alot backing the staff for been attacked
I think for health and safety all public workers should have body cam not just from their safety but for the safety of other public users,
it is my understanding of the law that if on a public street you can record for personal safety and if more people wear body cams in the public workers they could catch a lot more of what is going on as well as help police with their investigations as a body cam can show more then the human eyes can,
outside my work i have seen fights and people kicking off and if a body cam can show what is happening there because it is seen on camera then more people will be detoured to do it again when drunk and if the company has the understanding that the footage goes through the main office and body cams are downloaded on a single computer at the end of each shift then it should not be an issue for and public worker to maintain and keep a body cam on for personal protection
Absolutely, camera footage can be extremely useful in helping understand a situation, and also as a deterrent when worn as a high visibility piece of equipment.
To play devil’s, covert recording is wrong and footage can also be edited to create falsehoods in actions and speech, which can then be shared as truth.
Disgraceful. I would carry on wearing the cam and if he got the sack, the council would be on very dodgy ground.
For certain he would be able to take them to an employment tribunal (he has over 2 years service) , and he would almost certainly win.
Just let the poor man have his body camera I see people recording and takeing photo’s all the time what is different with him having a camera too make himself feel safe at work
Don’t take it off. In fact others should join in and support this man.