Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Employees and Internet Use - Legal Aspects


Published on

This is an extract from a longer talk I gave at the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association, Shelbourne Hotel, Dublin, December 2012

  • Be the first to like this

Employees and Internet Use - Legal Aspects

  1. 1. EMPLOYEES AND INTERNET USEDarius Whelan, Faculty of Law, University College CorkDublin Solicitors Bar Association Seminar, December 2012
  2. 2. BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS Employee’s Privacy Employer’s Interests Employees do not leave their privacy at the front door when they come to work 2
  3. 3. EMPLOYER‟S INTERESTS / DUTIES Employers have general right to determine work tasks and control contract performance Employer has property rights in equipment Employers may lay down quality and behaviour standards Employer must safeguard employees‟ health, safety and welfare Employer has duty of trust and confidence towards employee 3
  4. 4. PRIVACY Halford v UK (1997):  Assistant Chief Constable – Office phones „tapped‟ – No warning  She had a reasonable expectation of privacy and so art. 8 had been breached Copland v UK (2007):  Employer (Welsh public college) monitoring internet usage, e-mails and telephone traffic of Ms.C (employee) without her knowledge  Content not monitored; instead names of recipients etc.  Held: Breach of Article 8 4
  5. 5. Köpke v Germany (2010) Employer had used covert video surveillance for two weeks to investigate employee for theft Domestic law required proportionality, etc. ECtHR held complaint under art. 8 manifestly ill- founded 5
  6. 6. KEY DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES  Data Protection Acts 1988-2003:  Data must be obtained and processed fairly  Data subject must be informed of purpose for which data are processed  Legitimate Processing:  Various categories including  Data subject consenting to processing, or  processing is for „legitimate interests‟ of controller without unduly prejudicing subject‟s rights/ freedoms / interests  Data must be kept for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes  There must be appropriate security measures  Data subject has right of access to data 6
  7. 7. Gresham Hotel (2007) Data Protection Commissioner Case Study 6 of 2007 Covert video surveillance Other employees being investigated, not this particular employee Gardaí were not involved Commissioner found data was being processed in a manner incompatible with its purpose Covert surveillance would require actual involvement of Gardaí or intention to involve them Amicable resolution reached 7
  8. 8.  Ali v First Quench (2001)  Covert video surveillance in off-licence office – thefts of stock – Mr A prime suspect  Mr A was filmed having sexual intercourse in office while shop open  Dismissal fair McGowan v Scottish Water (2004)  Video surveillance of employee‟s house, due to suspicion of timesheet irregularities  Dismissal fair; did not breach privacy 8
  9. 9.  Mehigan v Dyflin Publications (Ireland, 2002)  M received 3 pornographic images by e-mail and forwarded them on to someone else  Tribunal did not accept this was a one-off incident. Evidence of other material on computer inc. sexual cartoons  E-mails can often cause offence  The EAT will be heavily influenced by the existence of a written policy reserving right to dismiss  Unlikely dismissal permissible otherwise  Possible exception – downloading obscene pornography  (Distinction between facts here and „exceptional‟ cases unclear)  Onus on employer to introduce policy  Dismissal unfair, but employee contributed substantially  €2,000 for unfair dismissal plus €2,800 in lieu of notice 9
  10. 10. Murray and Rooney v ICS Building Society (2011) Two employees allegedly circulated pornography by email EAT found investigation flawed Investigation took place without their knowledge; they could not make submissions on terms of reference Investigation involved only small sample of emails and did not include employees who had deleted emails Dismissal was disproportionate 10 €30,000 to one employee; €36,000 to the other
  11. 11. Kiernan v A Wear (2008) Employee posted derogatory comments on BEBO E.g. Regarding manager “She called me a liar. I f**ing hate that c**t” Visible to customers Fair investigation held. Employee dismissed EAT found dismissal disproportionate Employee contributed to her dismissal €4,000 for unfair dismissal 11
  12. 12. Walker v Bausch and Lomb (2009) Employee wrote on intranet: “500 jobs to be gone at Waterford plant before end of first quarter 2008” No proof that employee had received intranet policy Fair hearing held. Employee dismissed. EAT found dismissal disproportionate Employee greatly contributed to situation €6,500 for unfair dismissal 12
  13. 13. O’Mahony v PJF Insurances (2011) Facebook – Employee called manager a “bitch” At first, the page was accidentally seen Employee then allowed full access A number of disparaging comments Suspended pending investigation EAT – Significant breach of trust which made employment untenable Employer acted reasonably. Dismissal fair. 13
  14. 14. GUIDANCE  Council of Europe  Recommendation R (89) 2 on Protection of Personal Data Used for Employment Purposes 1989  International Labour Organisation  Code of Practice on Protection of Workers‟ Personal Data 1997
  15. 15.  Article 29 Working Party  Opinion 8/2001 on processing of personal data in the employment context  Opinion 4/2004 on video surveillance Data Protection Commissioner (Ireland), Monitoring of Staff, Guidance Note, 2004 Data Protection Commissioner (Ireland), Data Protection and CCTV, Guidance Note, 2004 15
  16. 16. DRAWING UP A POLICY  Review legislation, guidance and cases  Clarify purposes of monitoring (if any) – must be proportionate  Notify purposes of monitoring to employees – e.g. state if can be used for disciplinary purposes; may ultimately lead to dismissal; misconduct v gross misconduct  Clarify ownership of Twitter followers, etc.  Perhaps permit reasonable personal use of e-mail / internet / social media  Regular reminders of policy  Other issues – see material cited 16
  17. 17.  References - See list provided Contact Details:  Dr Darius Whelan, Faculty of Law,  University College Cork   Email  Twitter: @dariuswirl 17