Intrusive surveillance leads to claims

Intrusive surveillance leading to claims and fractured trust

‍

Safetrac installed covert monitoring software on staff laptops to record screens and microphones. Staff only discovered it when private conversations were replayed by management. One worker developed anxiety and depression, and a claim was accepted. Police are now investigating.

An important lesson: business decisions and changes may be necessary, even when unpopular. Consultation isn’t 'asking permission', it’s about transparency and shaping the impact.

‍

Key facts

• Safetrac installed Teramind monitoring software on staff laptops to silently record audio and screen activity
• Surveillance ran April–June 2025, before the policy was expanded from a brief note to a two-page document.
• One employee subsequently developed anxiety and depression, and WorkCover granted their compensation claim, citing the covert surveillance as causative
• The surveillance is now under investigation by Victoria Police for possible breaches of surveillance laws

‍

‍

How consultation could have looked

1. Frame the “why” clearly

• Be upfront: “This decision has been made because of compliance, safety, or operational needs.”
• Staff don’t need to like the decision, but they do need clarity on why it’s happening.

‍

2. Consult on the “how”

• Scope – What exactly is monitored? Can it be narrowed?
• Safeguards – Who sees the data, and for how long?
• Transparency – How will people be told? Pop-ups, briefings, signage?
• Support – What support exists if people are anxious about the change?

‍

3. Provide input channels

• Safety reps, unions, anonymous questions, or trial phases.
• The point isn’t to debate the decision, but to surface risks and improvements.

‍

4. Close the loop (controls to reduce risk)

• Report back: “Here’s what we changed because of your input, and here’s what couldn’t change.”
• Even limited influence protects trust.

‍

5. Treat trust as a control

• Document the consultation.
• Build a review cycle to test if the measure is creating harm.
• Recognise that fractured trust multiplies risk exposure.

‍

Implications for officers and leaders

• Intent doesn’t negate impact - even well-intended monitoring for safety or performance becomes a hazard if executed without transparency.
• Trust can be an important control - When it fractures, your risk exposure escalates - more claims, more regulator attention, and cultural damage that lingers.

‍

We hope you found this insightful and as always, thank you so much for reading

‍