CCTV Surveillance No Threat to Casino Worker

A recent decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), reported by Workplace Express, provides a useful examination of how workplace surveillance interacts with protections against psychological harm. The case involved a Crown Melbourne (‘Casino’) employee who alleged that comments made by a manager about extensive CCTV coverage amounted to a threat or implied misuse of surveillance. The Tribunal rejected that characterisation, finding that the remarks did not constitute a threat and that the existence or reference to CCTV, of itself, did not amount to unlawful or improper conduct.

The factual context was central to the Tribunal’s reasoning. The employee had applied for flexible working arrangements, which were refused. During subsequent discussions, a manager referred to the Casino’s extensive CCTV systems. The employee interpreted these remarks as suggesting that surveillance could be used against her if she challenged the decision. However, the Tribunal found that this interpretation was not objectively supported. Rather, the comments were understood as a poorly expressed explanation of the highly regulated operational environment in which the Casino operated. There was no evidence of any intention to intimidate the employee or to weaponise surveillance in response to her request.

From an employment law perspective, the decision turned on the distinction between subjective perception and legally cognisable detriment. The Tribunal acknowledged that modern workplaces, particularly in regulated industries such as gaming, rely heavily on surveillance for compliance, security and integrity purposes. The mere existence of these systems, or their reference in workplace discussions, does not of itself give rise to a breach of duty. What is required is evidence of misuse or conduct that objectively crosses the threshold into intimidation, adverse action, or recognisable psychological harm.

The Tribunal emphasised that the appropriate test is an objective one. While an employee may feel uncomfortable or mistrustful when surveillance is mentioned in the context of a workplace dispute, the question is whether a reasonable person would view the conduct as threatening, coercive or retaliatory. In this case, that threshold was not met. The comments lacked sufficient specificity or context to support an inference of improper intent.

For employers, the decision offers both reassurance and caution. It confirms that CCTV and other monitoring tools used for legitimate operational purposes will not readily attract liability. However, it also highlights the importance of careful communication. Even neutral references to surveillance, if made during contentious discussions such as flexible work disputes, may be misconstrued if not handled sensitively.

For employees, the case illustrates the evidentiary burden involved in establishing claims of intimidation or adverse treatment linked to surveillance. Concern or anxiety alone is insufficient; there must be a clear nexus between the conduct and a form of legal detriment, such as an explicit threat, a pattern of behaviour, or tangible consequences.

More broadly, the decision reflects judicial reluctance to treat discomfort as unlawfulness, while reinforcing the ongoing need for clear governance and careful communication as workplace surveillance becomes increasingly normalised.

If you have questions about how this decision may affect you as an employee or employer, please contact Nick Stevens, Paul Chapman, Evelyn Rivera, Ayla Hutchison or Dragana Prtenjak.