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

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...

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...

Stop-bullying application rejected

An employee who claimed his new team leader micromanaged and bullied him has had his stop-bullying application rejected, after the Fair Work Commission found her behaviour "abrupt" but not repeated or unreasonable. The Bunnings Warehouse employee claimed that in May 2016 the new team leader asked him about his face – the left side of his face "droops" and he is unable to move his left arm – which he found "deeply disrespectful and hurtful". A few weeks later, the team leader on two occasions confronted him and questioned why he was in different sections of the store, he told the Commission, noting he believed he was being singled out and treated differently from colleagues. He contacted the store manager to discuss the issue but was told she was too busy to speak with him, and he subsequently took two days off because of work-related stress. The employee claimed that when he returned to work, the employer suspended him but didn't tell him wh...