News
Hello, my name is … none of your business
Hands up if you can remember the theme song to Cheers.
You know, the song about the bar that we all want to go to because "everybody knows your name"?
This show is, of course, a relic of the 1980s – and it seems, if recent case law is anything to go by, that its sentiment may be rather out of pace with current attitudes.
You see, in today's environment of privacy legislation, it seems that we might be more comfortable drinking in a bar where no-one knows our name.
Let me explain. The case is Makeham and ors v New Plymouth District Council (Unreported, Employment Court, Wellington, 17 February 2005). The issue was a decision by the New Plymouth District Council to require all of its employees to wear name badges.
Apparently, the Chief Executive of the New Plymouth District Council decided that, as a branding exercise, it should seek to achieve the provision of "sensational" service. As part of this, there was a belief that the public needed to know the people with whom they were dealing. And it was proposed that staff wear a badge with their first and second names and their photograph.
There was also a security aspect to the policy. Apparently, not all employees recognised each other as such, and the wearing of name badges (with photographs) would allow all employees to comfort themselves that others in their workplace were not intruders.
Before implementing this initiative, the Council appropriately consulted with its employees. Some did not take kindly to the name badges.
For example, the Council's Parking Wardens said that the nature of their job meant that they often encountered aggression on public streets, in difficult situations – and without the prospect of "back up" (one conjures up images of John and Poncherello barking requests for such assistance into their walkie talkies).
Similar complaints were made by Animal Control Officers. In short, certain employees said that wearing name badge identification might endanger their safety.
The Council accepted these arguments. They exempted the Parking Wardens and Animal Control Officers from the name badge policy.
Other types of employees were not, however, successful in similarly convincing the Council. Employees in the Aquatic Centre – and some employed in gardening roles – complained that, in the same way, their jobs meant that they interacted with people who might take unkindly to them, and the prospect of their identification might cause safety concerns for them.
Examples were given about interactions with intoxicated people – or dissatisfied Council customers. There were some rather unfortunate anecdotes which suggested that customers had, on previous occasions, made personal threats – intimidating both the employees and their families.
The issues in respect of these employees could not be resolved – and the matter went to the Employment Court for its consideration.
In its judgment, the Court held that, while in principle the name badge policy could not be said to be unlawful or unreasonable, the manner of its implementation was unreasonable. In short, the Court said that the Council had failed to act consistently between different groups of employees who had similar interests – and the need to protection.
The outcome was a decision by the Court that the particular employees concerned (in the Aquatic Centre and in gardening roles) should not be required to wear the name badges.
The Court stopped short of expressing a concluded view about employees in all other roles. It did, however, make some passing comments about the prospect of the Council achieving some of its objectives (including making sure that employees knew each other) in ways other than requiring the wearing of name badges.
In short, the Court accepted that there could be some significant safety concerns if the Council became a place where "everybody knows your name".
On the one hand, this decision accords with common sense. An employee in a role which tends to subject him or her to potential abuse should not be required to increase the likelihood of harm. People in certain occupations – or indeed people of certain cautious dispositions – choose to protect their identities by doing such things as making sure that they are not listed in any public directories. The Council's policy should not cut across this sort of private protection.
On the other hand, however, there does seem something of an irony that a policy intended to improve the provision of services – and staff morale – resulted in an outcome in which the dangers of the job were highlighted – and potentially morale between employees was caused to be brought into question.
Perhaps, in light of contemporary privacy issues, a television executive reading this article might consider a remake of Cheers, to take into account more contemporary notions of privacy.
Perhaps you could create "No-Names", a show about a bar where nobody asks your name … just in case you might get to know each other a little too well.
