Wearable technology can generate tremendous amounts of personal data. Any employer that incorporates this technology into their safety program should have a policy for the storage and destruction of this data. photo: Adobe Stock/VIK.
The global wearable technology market is expected to reach US$265.4 billion by 2026, according to projections from Markets and Markets. This segment covers everything from consumer electronics and healthcare devices to enterprise and industrial technology.
The workplace health and safety space, too, is booming with wearables to monitor workers and their environments. Think sensors that provide real-time information about a worker’s movements and posture to prevent occupational injuries, armbands that measure their vitals to detect warning signs of heat stress, and smartwatches that produce sleep insights and deliver a “fatigue forecast” before each upcoming shift.
As we grow more comfortable with wearable technology in our day-to-day lives, acceptance is increasingly spilling over into the world of work. In fact, a study titled ““Employee acceptance of wearable technology in the workplace,” published in the journal Applied Ergonomics, found that 59 per cent of survey respondents who reported past personal use of wearables also reported a willingness to use wearables for work. When presented with seven use cases – including improvements to productivity and health and fitness – respondents were most willing to wear technology at work to identify environmental hazards and improve safety.
Growing acceptance of wearables among workers is certainly a positive sign for organizations exploring ways to incorporate the technology into their health and safety programs. However, as Sandra Dorman, a full professor in the School of Kinesiology and Health Sciences and director of the Centre for Research in Occupational Safety and Health (CROSH) at Laurentian University notes, wearable technology is not a silver bullet; it’s a tool in the health and safety toolbox.
“Wearable technology is not a sole solution,” she cautions. “These are tools that are part of your broader risk management program. If you’re relying on these tools to prevent a death or injury, you’re not going to be legally protected.”
Dorman also notes that not all wearables are created equal. She stresses that organizations need to do their homework and choose devices that generate validated, reliable data.
“There are tons of devices coming out because [manufacturers] are realizing that there’s money to be made, and yet they haven’t done the work in terms of validating their performance,” she says. “You need to look at whether the device is measuring what the manufacturer says it’s measuring and what literature – that the company did not produce – supports that the tools within the device are reliable.”
If an employer deems a device reliable, the next step is to consider if it will hold up and perform in the work environment.
“Workplaces are rough environments, and most of these devices have been designed with the athlete or the general public in mind,” Dorman says. “I’ve worked with different devices that have fallen down really quickly in the field because almost all of them start in sports where they’re worn under very different conditions.”
Athletes tend to wear the devices for a relatively short time – such as the length of a training session, match, or competition.
“As soon as you transition that into an 8-, 10- or 12-hour shift, the comfort level drops dramatically. I think people haven’t appreciated that,” Dorman says. This can result in poor compliance among employees being asked to wear the devices.
Sizing can also be a challenge. In many work environments, a loose-fitting wearable can pose a safety hazard. However, if the device is too small or restrictive, compliance may suffer as workers opt for comfort over safety.
Finding a balance between these two realms is crucial in ensuring a wearable technology program is accepted by workers.
Balancing safety and privacy
Employers are also challenged to balance protecting workers against a worker’s right to privacy.
“Under [Ontario’s] Occupational Health and Safety Act, an employer has an obligation to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker,” says Ronald S. Minken, founder and managing principal of Minken Employment Lawyers. “On the other hand, workers have a common law right to privacy, which includes the collection of their personal data. Employers will therefore need to balance their obligation to protect the worker with the worker’s right to privacy.”
He adds, “A potential conflict between the employer’s obligation and the worker’s right to privacy may occur where an employer overreaches and collects data that is not considered ‘reasonable in the circumstances.’ For example, if an employer required a worker in an administrative role to wear health and safety technology to collect personal data with respect to that worker’s heart rate and breathing rate, that would likely be overreaching as there would be no need for this type of health data to be collected from a worker in an administrative role.”
Striking the right balance between safety and privacy can be tricky. That’s why Minken urges employers to consult with experienced legal counsel before implementing a wearable technology program that will collect a worker’s private data.
Counsel can support the employer in developing policies to safeguard employee data, including:
- The circumstances under which a worker will be required to wear the technology;
- Which categories of workers the policy applies to (i.e. workers who are in roles where their health and safety must be monitored for their protection);
- Exemptions available to workers to not wear the technology, such as under the Human Rights Code;
- The use of the data from the technology; and
- The storage and destruction of the data collected.
“Employers who choose to store the data, rather than deleting it at the end of a worker’s shift, may face legal liability for the improper use and storage of a worker’s private data, which includes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion and other common law remedies available to workers for a breach of their privacy,” explains Tanya Sambi, associate lawyer at Minken Employment Lawyers. “If a worker were to commence legal proceedings against the employer for a breach of their privacy, employers may face an award of damages for the breach of the worker’s privacy, which will likely include paying a portion of the workers’ legal costs, as well as the costs for their own legal counsel, not to mention reputational damage to the employer. Accordingly, it can be very costly to an employer who chooses to misuse a workers’ private data.”
To that end, Minken and Sambi recommend employers implement the following procedures:
- Limit access to the data collected from wearable tech to only those members of the upper management team who need the data to make decisions regarding the worker’s health and safety;
- Store data on a protected server so it is not accessible by any member of the public or any workers in the organization who are not required to access the data; and
- Destroy the data as soon as reasonably possible, so the data is not stored any longer than needed.
Securing buy-in
In addition to limiting legal liability, having clear policies and procedures in place before rolling out a wearable technology program can be critical in securing worker buy-in to the program.
How workers are introduced to the technology matters too.
“I would recommend a trial implementation with a small group of individuals,” Dorman says. “Sometimes we give a device to management to wear because they know their organization and will have the best sense of how to implement it. Other times, we’ll do trials with small groups of people so you still understand how the device works in your context, but you’re also letting everybody else see it, touch it or even try it for a day.”
She adds, “It’s very meaningful to bring in samples and let people try them on, ask questions, and express their concerns about who’s going to have the data.”
When the right device is thoughtfully incorporated into a well-designed safety program, the results can empower workers and build safety culture.
“We’ve typically told workers to take care of themselves, pay attention to how they feel, and listen to their bodies,” Dorman says. “These tools can provide support for a worker to say, ‘My device tells me this and I’m not allowed to work under these conditions as set by management,’ which makes work safer and teaches safety culture.”
Print this page
link