{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-24T07:23:40.691Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"computer-vision","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"unknown","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-australian-supermarket-cashier-given-final-written-warning-after-ai-checkout-camera-flags-union-says","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"A supermarket employee with more than 30 years' service recently received a final written warning for scanning inaccuracy, generated by an AI checkout monitoring system","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"a cashier at one big supermarket received a final written warning because the AI monitoring system had flagged her making too many errors.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The union’s submission tells of a supermarket worker with more than 30 years’ service who received a final written warning for scanning errors. An AI checkout system, using overhead cameras to match items against scans, generated it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The SDA says a supermarket employee with more than 30 years' service recently received a final written warning for scanning inaccuracy generated by an AI checkout monitoring system.","causal_attribution":"The union's account in its parliamentary submission; the Guardian and the Sydney Morning Herald relay the same submission. The supermarket is not named and its response is not reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"system that uses overhead cameras to compare items moved through the checkout against items scanned, flagging alerts wherever it detects a possible mismatch. Those alerts are automated and do not appear to account for transaction complexity, customer interaction, or ordinary human error","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the SDA, the system uses overhead cameras to compare items moved through the checkout with items scanned and flags an alert wherever it detects a possible mismatch; the alerts are automated.","causal_attribution":"The SDA's description of the system; no vendor or technical documentation is cited."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"in practice they trigger an escalation cycle where the system flags a possible issue, head office visibility is triggered, store management is expected to respond, and disciplinary action becomes the easiest defensible outcome for a manager under scrutiny from above.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The SDA says the alerts set off an escalation in which head office is alerted, store management is expected to respond and disciplinary action becomes the easiest defensible outcome.","causal_attribution":"The union's characterisation of how the alerts are used; the employer's process is not independently described."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Her error rate was approximately 0.18 per cent (roughly one error per 533 items scanned), consistent with ordinary human variation; At no point was she told what error rate the system considered acceptable, what tolerance applied, what benchmark the system used","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The error rate was reported to be 0.18%, or roughly one error per 533 items scanned.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The SDA says the employee's error rate was about 0.18 per cent, roughly one error per 533 items scanned, and that she was never told what error rate or tolerance the system treated as acceptable.","causal_attribution":"Figures and the account of non-disclosure come from the SDA; the Guardian relays them."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The union has challenged the warning.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the union has challenged the warning.","causal_attribution":"The Herald's statement; no detail or result of the challenge is given."}],"effects":[{"label":"final written warning for scanning inaccuracy generated by AI checkout monitoring (union account)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=48979385-479f-45cb-abdb-7b1293a401c3&subId=802196","kind":"union_submission","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English PDF (Submission 17, published on aph.gov.au) read in full on 2026-10-24 by the research agent (an AI); no translation required. The submission is undated; it cites reports from July 2026.","independence_group":"sda-submission-17-ai-committee"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/20/workplace-privacy-concerns-employers-use-ai-to-monitor-staff","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English article read in full on 2026-10-24 by the research agent (an AI) (HTTP 200); no translation required. It relays the SDA submission, so it shares its independence group.","independence_group":"sda-submission-17-ai-committee"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.smh.com.au/technology/i-never-gave-consent-the-australians-being-replaced-with-copies-of-themselves-20261010-p613x1.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English article of 10 October 2026 read in full on 2026-10-24 by the research agent (an AI) (HTTP 200); no translation required. It relays the SDA submission, so it shares its independence group, and adds that the union has challenged the warning.","independence_group":"sda-submission-17-ai-committee"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["When the warning was issued; the submission says only that it was received recently.","Which supermarket chain and which monitoring product were involved.","Whether the system's individual alerts were correct, and whether a manager reviewed them before the warning.","The form and result of the union's challenge to the warning; the supermarket has not responded in any inspected source."],"geography":{"basis":"The SDA describes itself as one of Australia's largest trade unions and wrote the case study for the Australian parliament's committee about its members' workplaces; the Guardian reports it as an Australian case. The state and store are not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a single workplace event: the SDA's parliamentary submission says an AI checkout camera system's automated alerts generated a final written warning to a long-serving cashier, and describes how the alerts reached management. The account is attributed to the union, relayed by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian, and the employer has not been heard.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The SDA's submission says the system's overhead cameras compare items moved through the checkout with items scanned and automatically flag possible mismatches attributed to the cashier, and that the final written warning was generated by this system through an escalation from its alerts to head office and store management. The AI's own flags are the reported basis of the warning; the description is the union's and the supermarket has not been heard.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Australian supermarket cashier got final written warning after AI checkout camera system flagged scanning errors, union submission says","summary":"The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA), an Australian union representing retail, warehouse and fast-food workers, told the federal parliament's Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence in its written submission that a supermarket employee with more than 30 years' service had recently received a final written warning for scanning inaccuracy generated by an AI checkout monitoring system. According to the union, the system uses overhead cameras to compare items moved through the checkout with items scanned and automatically flags possible mismatches, which set off escalation to head office and pressure on store managers to act. The SDA says her error rate was about 0.18 per cent, roughly one error in 533 items scanned, and that she was never told what standard the system applied. The Sydney Morning Herald (10 October 2026) and Guardian Australia (20 October 2026) reported the case; the Herald says the union has challenged the warning. The account is the union's; the supermarket is not named, and its response and the result of the challenge are not reported.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-10","aiSystem":"AI checkout monitoring system at an unnamed Australian supermarket that, according to the SDA, uses overhead cameras to compare items moved through the checkout with items scanned and automatically flags possible mismatches","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI checkout camera monitoring system","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A long-serving supermarket cashier received a final written warning for scanning inaccuracy that her union says was generated by an AI checkout camera system's automated alerts, against a standard never disclosed to her (SDA submission).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The SDA submission describes one employee who received the final written warning. She was monitored by the system, not its user.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=48979385-479f-45cb-abdb-7b1293a401c3&subId=802196","primarySourceLabel":"SDA, Submission 17 to the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence (2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:05:55.387375+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:15:07.072689+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["workplace-ai","ai-monitoring","employment","retail","computer-vision"]}]}