To record or not to record?

Andrea Madarassy, the ex-Nomura banker appealing the verdict in a sex discrimination case, is said to have concealed a tape recorder in her handbag. Recruiters and lawyers are divided on the merits of using hidden surveillance to keep banks in check.

"If a candidate came to me and said they were going to record a conversation with a bank's recruiter, I would advise against it in any circumstances," says Ben Dear, a director at recruitment firm Mantis Partners. "It is unnecessary and unethical."

Employment lawyers are less categorical in their dismissal of using hidden devices. Charles Ferguson, a lawyer representing disaffected traders, says they can help in pay disputes. "The classic case is when a bank says bonuses are typically 15% of trading profits, and 'forgets' this when it comes to payday. In that situation, it will help if you have a recording of the initial conversation."

Stephen Lorber, an employment partner at law firm Lewis Silkin, says the advent of mobile telephones with recording facilities means disaffected staff are increasingly recording interviews and the like. Although the practice is perfectly legal, he says it's not entirely advisable. "Personally I think it is extremely paranoid to embark on a relationship where you start off covertly recording things."

In Madarassy's case, the tape-recorder-in-handbag ruse appears anyway to have backfired. According to the Financial Times, Nomura is claiming that the conversation she is alleged to have recorded shouldn't have taken place in the first place, and that her appeal should now be thrown out of court.

What do you think? Is it wise to record key conversations with employers? Or is it a breach of trust? Let us know what you think.

We will add your comment below and keep it anonymous unless you tell us otherwise.