header-logo header-logo

29 January 2016 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7684 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Becoming anti-social (Pt 2)

nlj_7684_brydensalter-

Chris Bryden & Michael Salter bust some myths surrounding the Barbulescu case

“Bosses can snoop on workers’ private emails and messages”. “Britain has a new human right…freedom to spy on employees’ emails”. “Private messages at work can be read by European employers”. These were just three attention-grabbers (from The Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the BBC News website) following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Barbulescu v Romania (App no. 61496/08). Perhaps predictably, a proper reading of the case reveals that matters are not quite so clear-cut.

Mr Barbulescu was a sales engineer. He was requested in the course of his employment to create a Yahoo Messenger account, for the specific purpose of communicating with his customers and responding to their enquiries. The employer had a written policy which prevented its computers and other equipment from being used for personal purposes. It transpired that Barbulescu had indeed used his account for such purposes, and was discovered due to monitoring of the Messenger account by

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll