Email Privacy

DBS2004

I was wondering, has there been any case brought forward where an employee has sued his/her employer for invasion of privacy through monitoring of email and internet use?

Thanks

Sangre

They're fully entitled to monitor your internet usuage at work.

fifth

Yeah, I suppose if you want personal emailing pleasure, get it elsewhere, not at work.

sh_o

It is not quite as straight forward as that. You would generally have to be aware that your employer monitors your data, for example through a policy.
Take a look at the data protection commissioner's guidance on the matter.

If there was no policy in place, and you were sanctioned or dismissed, then there may be grounds for unfair dismissal. This would depend on the facts though.

DBS2004

ive researched it and an employee is entitled to a right to privacy in regard to communications, according to Haughey V Moriarty. So an employer cannot look at your usage unless you give permission.

maidhc

sh_o wrote:

It is not quite as straight forward as that. You would generally have to be aware that your employer monitors your data, for example through a policy.
Take a look at the data protection commissioner's guidance on the matter.

If there was no policy in place, and you were sanctioned or dismissed, then there may be grounds for unfair dismissal. This would depend on the facts though.

Exactly!

Our man in Havana

So no policy = no monitoring

focusing

There could be an implied term that you don't use the 'net and email in the office for personal use, much as you would be expected not to use the company stamps for your personal Christmas Cards.

It would be hard for them to use it as an excuse to fire someone who'd been there for more than a year, unless there was misconduct beyond just checking your travel plans or the football transfer news.

aphex™

focusing wrote:

There could be an implied term that you don't use the 'net and email in the office for personal use, much as you would be expected not to use the company stamps for your personal Christmas Cards.
.

True but if they block any websites (eg. Gambling- even the lotto is blocked in my place and results instead on the intranet) but not others, eg. the Sport section of a news site, then that wouldn't really hold.

EDIT: My place have a thing where they remotely manage computers from an office, i notice how they ask for permission to CONTROL the pc, but not to view what you're doing. Which is pretty sick. Court case waiting to happen (if they're reading this!). Lol

Thomas_S_Hunterson

aphex&#8482 wrote:

True but if they block any websites (eg. Gambling- even the lotto is blocked in my place and results instead on the intranet) but not others, eg. the Sport section of a news site, then that wouldn't really hold.

I don't see why not, it's the companies right to block sites which might impicate them in illegal activity, such as P2P/warez and any other sites they deem inappropriate, the implied terms of a contract is a different issue and relates to the employees use of the sites which the company has not felt the need to block.

aphex™

sean_keevey wrote:

I don't see why not, it's the companies right to block sites which might impicate them in illegal activity, such as P2P/warez and any other sites they deem inappropriate, the implied terms of a contract is a different issue and relates to the employees use of the sites which the company has not felt the need to block.

But its not just p2p / warez its harmless websites (lotto.ie). I would think that by letting us access other sites, they allow it, since they're not actively trying to block it (haven't switched the block "sports" [eg] facility on)

Thomas_S_Hunterson

aphex&#8482 wrote:

But its not just p2p / warez its harmless websites (lotto.ie). I would think that by letting us access other sites, they allow it, since they're not actively trying to block it (haven't switched the block "sports" [eg] facility on)

Just because I don't actively try and prevent people mugging me in the street by hiring a bodyguard doesn't mean that I allow it!

Maybe the blocked sites aren't in keeping with the company ethos. for instance www.lotto.ie relates directly to gambling and is thus not really that harmless, when you consider the problems gambling causes in society.

Hobart

My company have a policy which is written as part of your employment contract. Each employee has an employment contract. By signing your contract of employment, you by default, give permission to the company to monitor/copy/archive your emails and any internet usage. It's a saftey net for both sides and it works well.

Afaik, Bond is correct, no policy = no monitoring.

jhegarty

aphex&#8482 wrote:

But its not just p2p / warez its harmless websites (lotto.ie). I would think that by letting us access other sites, they allow it, since they're not actively trying to block it (haven't switched the block "sports" [eg] facility on)

Most companies have rules against using work PCs in any gambling activists… which checking lotto.ie would be….

I presume they don’t want someone taking any action because they facilitated a gambling problem….

aphex™

jhegarty wrote:

Most companies have rules against using work PCs in any gambling activists… which checking lotto.ie would be….

I presume they don’t want someone taking any action because they facilitated a gambling problem….

Yeah, but as I said in my post, they have put lotto numbers on the intranet.

They set the net wide. This wideness suggests they block everything you're not allowed view and more.To me anyway.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Yeah, but as I said in my post, they have put lotto numbers on the intranet.

They set the net wide. This wideness suggests they block everything you're not allowed view and more.To me anyway.

I would suggest you have a quick peek at your contract and any agreements that you have signed, or implied agreement to before you go testing the rules