Make Work Pay: Workplace Monitoring Technologies

On 8 July 2026, the Department for Business and Trade published its consultation on workplace monitoring technologies (WMT) as part of the Government’s Make Work Pay programme. The consultation seeks views on proposals to support the fair, transparent and responsible use of digital tools that employers use to monitor, manage or make decisions relating to workers. Responses are due by 30 September 2026.

The consultation makes clear that organisations deploying WMT will be expected to meet higher standards across data protection, employment and equality laws.

Importantly, this is not only an employment-law issue. The definition of WMT is broad enough to capture security, cyber resilience, AI and operational technologies that incidentally process worker data. Organisations should consider whether the proposals could affect technology deployment beyond traditional HR and workforce management, including systems used to meet cyber security, health and safety, or critical infrastructure obligations.

Why should I read this?

If your organisation uses, or is considering using, any digital tool to collect, track, analyse or make decisions based on information about workers, this consultation is directly relevant to you. The Government’s definition of WMT is broad and captures technologies used to observe performance, behaviour, attendance or communications, as well as systems that use worker data to inform or make decisions. It covers both physical and remote workplaces and expressly includes automated decision-making, algorithmic management and AI.

Examples of technologies within scope include:

• location and movement tracking (e.g. GPS fleet tracking, badge systems)
• digital activity monitoring (e.g. keystroke logging, time-on-application tracking, website monitoring)
• biometric access or verification systems
• health and physiological monitoring (e.g. wearables, fatigue sensors)
• individual video monitoring (e.g. always-on webcams, driver-facing cameras)
• automated performance evaluation (e.g. algorithmic scoring, task logging, productivity tools)

The current definition would also extend to technologies that do not fit the normal meaning of “monitoring” and would arguably also cover tools introduced for operational or other purposes such as desk/room bookings in hybrid office environments, “Follow me” badge activated printers, and collaboration tools that show “status” indicators like Microsoft Teams. There is also no distinction between passive/routine data collection and active monitoring.

The consultation signals the Government’s clear intention to raise standards around workplace monitoring. Employers should treat this as an early indicator of the regulatory direction of travel.

What should I do?

Organisations should consider the three options under consideration. Even at this early stage, the practical implications for large employers are material:

Option A: Statutory code of practice plus guidance. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade could issue a statutory code under section 203(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Like other statutory codes of practice, a failure to follow the code would not give rise to any standalone claim by workers or direct employer penalties. However, employment tribunals could take the code into account in relevant proceedings—for example, in unfair dismissal or discrimination claims involving WMT—and if an employer unreasonably failed to follow the code, the tribunal could adjust compensation by up to 25%.

Option B: Legislative duty to consult and negotiate. Primary legislation could require plans to adopt WMT to be subject to consultation and negotiation, with a view to agreement of trade unions or elected staff representatives where there is no recognised trade union. The process must happen in good time and provide a genuine opportunity to influence outcomes, though agreement would not necessarily be required. Enforcement would be via employment tribunals with remedies potentially including protective awards, although the consultation paper “goes further to ask whether remedies should include suspension or delay of WMT deployment, financial penalties, compensation awards or referrals to regulators.

Option C: Non-statutory guidance. Practical guidance could help employers understand existing requirements and adopt good practice (case studies, toolkits, worked examples). This option would not create new legal obligations or remedies, and carries a lower direct burden on employers.

In practice, Option B (duty to consult and negotiate) would significantly increase the legal risk associated with workplace monitoring, particularly for organisations that deploy WMT without adequate consultation, transparency or governance frameworks. At the minimum, it would create new procedural obligations on the employer akin to the existing collective redundancy obligations, potentially slowing WMT adoption and adding cost and complexity. There is also scope for legal uncertainty on what terms such as “consultation”, “negotiation” and “view to reaching agreement” mean, and how it will apply in practice to ongoing development and improvement of technology deployment. More significantly are the potential remedies including suspension or delay of WMT adoption and even that “the employer should not proceed without agreement in specified high-risk cases” effectively granting trade unions and worker representatives a right of veto – a power that does not currently exist in UK legislation. Option A (statutory code of practice) would be the lighter touch regulatory approach but still adds a litigation risk factor with the potential 25% uplift compensation for breach. Even under Option C, an employer that does not follow good practice guidance may find it cited against it in tribunal proceedings or regulatory investigations.

The consultation also addresses who should be covered by any new requirements. While Option B would most straightforwardly apply to employees, the consultation asks whether the duty should extend to limb-b workers or all individuals exposed to WMT regardless of employment status, a proposal that would have a greater impact on platform based businesses given their higher use of WMT.

What should we do next?

Employers should consider reviewing and responding to the consultation by 30 September 2026. This is a genuine opportunity to shape policy, particularly on the design of any statutory code or legislative duty, the triggers for consultation, and the interaction with existing data protection and employment law frameworks. Although the consultation paper does not set out the Government’s preferred approach, it is worth noting that the Labour party’s “Delivering a New Deal for Working People” paper that formed part of its 2024 manifesto, expressly provided for a ‘minimum’ consultation and negotiation obligation.

The Government will analyse consultation responses and publish a government response in due course. If adopted, the proposals will extend to England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland, where employment law is devolved. We will provide further updates as the policy position crystallises.

If you would like further information on the consultation or are considering responding, do reach out to us.