The use of vehicle tracking technology by managers of those who drive company vehicles as part of their job is controversial. For instance, parcel delivery firms routinely use such technology so that managers, and sometimes even customers, can check drivers’ progress on their routes. It has also resulted in a number of disputes between firms and trade unions about the monitoring of drivers. Among other things, drivers and their unions have been concerned about privacy and the possible use of such systems to monitor driver location and performance. For management’s part, such workers have traditionally been very difficult to control, as they often work alone and cannot be readily supervised when off the company premises.
In 2009 British Telecom (BT) engineers in Southampton belonging to the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) organised a demonstration about the proposed installation of GPS vehicle tracking systems in their vehicle cabs. In response to this disquiet, BT managers entered discussions with CWU representatives and the outcome was a jointly negotiated Memorandum of Understanding that stipulated how GPS equipment was to be used in the future. The agreement stated that the system would not be used as a means of engaging in surveillance of employees, nor would it be used as the sole basis for opening disciplinary proceedings against, or questioning the performance of individuals.
The agreement reached also gave guarantees about employees’ reasonable expectations of privacy while out on the road and committed BT management and the CWU to consulting jointly in order to engage trust. As a result of the agreement, BT line managers were forbidden from accessing the GPS system to view data in real time on tracked vehicle movements. This does not imply that they cannot access historical data.
As a result of this agreement, a potentially serious dispute was averted and relations between the company and the CWU appear to have been strengthened.

1.Explain fully ways in which you think it was possible to avoid this dispute.

2.How does this case illustrate the management dilemma of the extent to which employees should be controlled or trusted? What factors complicate this dilemma in the case of employees who mainly work offsite?

3.To what extent do you think the case demonstrates the value of reaching joint agreement on technological change? What other possible approaches do you think could have been adopted and would have been the likely outcome in each scenario you can identify?