Pedalling the myth the camera never lies

The ability to record on different devices means there is a risk any of us could be unwittingly captured on camera and then unfairly face allegations of wrongdoing in the same way that Sian did.

The gas engineer had a furious row with a cyclist who had accused her of using her mobile phone while driving her company van.

The heated exchange, including the use of some expletives, was captured on a head camera worn by the bike rider.

Sian categorically denied using her phone, but was suspended from work when management at the company where she had been employed for three years were made aware of the footage.

In the recording the cyclist said he had caught another ‘idiot driver’ on the phone as he approached Sian’s van from behind, as it was stopped at traffic lights.

He pulled up alongside Sian, who was not on the phone, shouted and swore at her through the open driver’s window and said she had been caught illegally using her mobile phone and would be reported to police.

Sian was never contacted by the police, but the footage did land her in trouble at work.

During a fact-finding meeting that took place as part of the disciplinary investigation, Sian was accused of breaching company policy by using her phone while driving.

The footage was played to Sian for the first time, and she vehemently denied the allegation.

She correctly, and successfully argued, the footage never actually captured her using her mobile.  

It was an allegation made verbally by the cyclist without any tangible evidence to support the accusation. 

The investigation manager adjourned the fact-finding meeting and said she would carry out further investigations.

Sian remained on suspension for another seven weeks during which she heard nothing about the case.

Frustrated at being left in limbo, Sian decided to raise a grievance that the process was unfair and that the unreasonable delay in the investigation breached the good practice guidance in the ACAS Code of Practice.

Sian received an invite to a disciplinary hearing two days after submitting the grievance. It was to face a single allegation of bringing the company into disrepute during the incident.

Sian decided not to pursue the grievance and to deal with the disciplinary case instead.

The disciplinary allegation centred on the manner in which Sian reacted to the cyclist, and in particular swearing just once and telling him to ‘f*** off and get a life’ before driving off.

Sian contacted our Employee Support Centre for help and discussed her case with our representative.

He later told the disciplinary hearing chair that the allegation that Sian had brought the company into disrepute was stated as a fact, but without any tangible evidence to support it.

Our representative admitted that while there was the potential for her to have done so, that was not the actual allegation and therefore she should be cleared.

The footage had not been posted online, there was no complaint sent with it, the employer’s name was never visible in the video and the employer bizarrely claimed that because of data protection rules it could not reveal how it obtained the footage. These points were all used in the overall argument to strongly assert the case against Sian was unfair.

Our representative said that Sian regretted some of the things she said during the incident, but asked the employer to focus on the context in which this occurred.

Referring to the footage, he said it showed Sian’s shocked and startled reaction when the cyclist pulled up by the side of the van, as she was staring ahead, and he shouted and swore at her that she had been caught f***ing red handed and was going to be reported to the police.

Sian’s initially calm reaction to the irate cyclist was highlighted to show that she conducted herself well at first before eventually snapping, swearing and driving off after being called a stupid woman.

The provocation from the cyclist in Sian being wrongly accused of acting illegally and him swearing at her more than once and her spontaneous reaction, was cited as important mitigation.