Employee terminated after supervisors tracked her keystrokes while telecommuting

It’s true, we are currently experiencing a situation reminiscent of the dystopian novel ‘1984’, where employees can now be terminated based on their keyboard activity.

One woman in Australia had the unfortunate experience of being fired from a major insurance company. The reason behind her dismissal was the company’s discovery of her productivity levels while working from home.

In February 2023, IAG decided to remove her from the company after conducting a thorough investigation into her cyber activity. During the review, they analyzed the frequency of her keyboard usage.

According to the review, she did not work her rostered hours on 44 out of 49 days. She started late on 47 days, finished early on 29 days, and didn’t work at all for four days.

During the days she did attend, her laptop showed minimal keystroke activity, according to the review. On average, she only typed between 34.56 and 90 keystrokes per hour.

In order to fulfill her duties effectively, she would have needed to maintain an average of “upwards of 500 keystrokes per hour,” as stated by her boss.

After being fired, Cheikho applied to the FWC for unfair dismissal. Unfortunately, her application was rejected by the commission, as they determined that her termination was justified.

The FWC rejected the cyber review’s findings, expressing doubt and stating, “I don’t believe for a minute it’s true.”

During her meeting with her employer before being fired, she tried to defend herself by stating something along the lines of: “While there have been times when the workload has been slower, I have always been diligent and completed my tasks.”

She accused her employer of intentionally plotting to dismiss her from the company, claiming that she was singled out because of her mental health problems.

She admitted that she had experienced several “personal traumatic setbacks, including family bereavements, […] that had a significant negative effect on her.”

The conclusion reached was that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *