Skip to main content

Can you check an employee’s emails without their knowledge?

While email is a vital communication tool for businesses, an organisation is vulnerable to employees who misuse it. Employer monitoring of email may be necessary to identify misconduct or to prevent harm to the employer’s business.  

In a digital age where the line between personal and public is becoming increasingly blurred, the question often arises as to the rights of an employer to monitor employee email.

Australia is split on this issue. Australian private sector employers in states and territories other than NSW and the ACT can check employee’s emails without prior notice, agreement or policy. There are also special rules for public sector employers. Both NSW and the ACT have introduced legislation regulating private sector workplace computer surveillance.  

In NSW and the ACT, unless a covert surveillance authority is obtained from a magistrate, complying with the legislative requirements for overt surveillance will mean an employer can lawfully check emails when needed. These requirements are:

•    giving the employee 14 days’ written notice (or less if agreed) before commencing surveillance. Note: if surveillance has already commenced, or will commence in less than 14 days before a new employee joins, notice must be given to the new employee before they join;
•    the notice must identify how the computer surveillance will be conducted, its start date, its duration (specified period or ongoing) and whether it will be continuous or intermittent; and
•    the surveillance must be conducted in accordance with a policy notified to the employee in advance of the surveillance (it must be reasonable for the employer to assume the employee is aware of and understands the policy).

In the ACT, the policy must also meet certain content requirements, including providing information about how the computer resources are logged, who may access logged information and how compliance with the policy is monitored and audited.

Once the above requirements are met, employers in NSW and the ACT can check emails without their employee’s knowledge provided that the basis for checking is consistent with the reasons for monitoring given in the surveillance policy. As such, when preparing a computer surveillance policy, any desire to assure employees of their privacy needs to be balanced against legitimate monitoring purposes to avoid unreasonably fettering the employer’s prerogative to monitor its own IT email system.

Using the results

Employers must nonetheless take care when using surveillance results. Checking emails and relying on your findings in support of disciplinary action can be very helpful – but only when done lawfully and in accordance with communicated expectations regarding work email use.

In NSW and the ACT, covert surveillance results can only be disclosed as permitted by the surveillance authority. Overt surveillance results can be used more broadly. For example, the results can be used for a legitimate business purpose such as disciplinary action.

If the results are used to dismiss an employee and legislative requirements have not been met, or if the employer’s policy has not been complied with or is vague or contradictory, you can be certain that the employer will be staring down the barrel of a claim (unfair dismissal being the most obvious for eligible employees).  

For all employers, best practice is to have a clear policy about permitted use of work email and computer surveillance. The policy should state that work email is not private and may be monitored.

In NSW and the ACT, private sector employers need to take the further steps of notice and/or consent to that monitoring. The best way to obtain such consent is by including an appropriate clause in an offer letter or contract of employment.

While email is a vital communication tool for businesses, an organisation is vulnerable to employees who misuse it. Employer monitoring of email may be necessary to identify misconduct or to prevent harm to the employer’s business.  

In a digital age where the line between personal and public is becoming increasingly blurred, the question often arises as to the rights of an employer to monitor employee email.

Australia is split on this issue. Australian private sector employers in states and territories other than NSW and the ACT can check employee’s emails without prior notice, agreement or policy. There are also special rules for public sector employers. Both NSW and the ACT have introduced legislation regulating private sector workplace computer surveillance.  

In NSW and the ACT, unless a covert surveillance authority is obtained from a magistrate, complying with the legislative requirements for overt surveillance will mean an employer can lawfully check emails when needed. These requirements are:

•    giving the employee 14 days’ written notice (or less if agreed) before commencing surveillance. Note: if surveillance has already commenced, or will commence in less than 14 days before a new employee joins, notice must be given to the new employee before they join;
•    the notice must identify how the computer surveillance will be conducted, its start date, its duration (specified period or ongoing) and whether it will be continuous or intermittent; and
•    the surveillance must be conducted in accordance with a policy notified to the employee in advance of the surveillance (it must be reasonable for the employer to assume the employee is aware of and understands the policy).

In the ACT, the policy must also meet certain content requirements, including providing information about how the computer resources are logged, who may access logged information and how compliance with the policy is monitored and audited.

Once the above requirements are met, employers in NSW and the ACT can check emails without their employee’s knowledge provided that the basis for checking is consistent with the reasons for monitoring given in the surveillance policy. As such, when preparing a computer surveillance policy, any desire to assure employees of their privacy needs to be balanced against legitimate monitoring purposes to avoid unreasonably fettering the employer’s prerogative to monitor its own IT email system.

Using the results

Employers must nonetheless take care when using surveillance results. Checking emails and relying on your findings in support of disciplinary action can be very helpful – but only when done lawfully and in accordance with communicated expectations regarding work email use.

In NSW and the ACT, covert surveillance results can only be disclosed as permitted by the surveillance authority. Overt surveillance results can be used more broadly. For example, the results can be used for a legitimate business purpose such as disciplinary action.

If the results are used to dismiss an employee and legislative requirements have not been met, or if the employer’s policy has not been complied with or is vague or contradictory, you can be certain that the employer will be staring down the barrel of a claim (unfair dismissal being the most obvious for eligible employees).  

For all employers, best practice is to have a clear policy about permitted use of work email and computer surveillance. The policy should state that work email is not private and may be monitored.

In NSW and the ACT, private sector employers need to take the further steps of notice and/or consent to that monitoring. The best way to obtain such consent is by including an appropriate clause in an offer letter or contract of employment

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work. Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a learning and development manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability. The company came out swinging against the claims early on,   posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims  and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case. The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while...

Recent decisions at the Fair Work Commission

Knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk Unfair dismissal applications are all too common and employers regularly find themselves in hot water when they are on the receiving end of one. Whilst the outcome of every unfair dismissal case tends to turn on its own individual merits, opportunities to learn and refresh one’s knowledge consistently arise – and knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk. To assist you in managing your unfair dismissal claims risk, this article set out some important lessons and reminders compiled from a number of recent unfair dismissal decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. If an employee has “gotten away” with certain conduct in the past, it can be difficult to later justify their dismissal for such conduct. In West v Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 2346, the applicant employee allowed a casual labour hire worker to operate a crane without adequate supervision. This was despite the fact that the labour hire wo...
The serious threat SMEs are ignoring: One in two small businesses don’t have a policy for bullying claims One in two small businesses do not know how they would respond if bullying allegations were raised by their staff, according to new research, leaving them open to significant costs and productivity issues. But workplace experts say these concerns can be prevented with forward planning A survey of 400 businesses from employment relations advisory Employsure found one in two Australian small businesses don’t have a “defined action plan” for when bullying is raised at work, with many unaware that they could face costs related to dispute resolution or even penalties relating to bullying cases in some states. The research, which surveyed businesses with up to 15 employees, found those businesses with between two and four employees were the most likely to be unaware of best practice processes for dealing with bullying claims, with only 40% of businesses saying they know the st...