header-logo header-logo

Employers can read private messages

19 January 2016
Issue: 7683 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers have offered reassurance in the wake of a Strasbourg ruling on private messages sent at work.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled, in Barbulescu v Romania (App. 61496/08), that employers can read personal messages sent by employees at work, whether on email, WhatsApp, Facebook or other services. Mihai Barbulescu, a Romanian engineer, was dismissed for making private use of his employer’s Yahoo Messenger account during work hours and in breach of company rules. He had been notified that his communications could be monitored. The court rejected argument that his Art 8 rights had been breached, finding that a fair balance had been reached between his right to respect for his private life and correspondence and his employer’s interests.

Makbool Javaid, head of employment law at Simons Muirhead and Burton, says: “Some reports in the media that this judgment gives the green light for an employer’s ‘snooper’s charter’ are wide of the mark.

“This case is fact specific and the bottom line is that Art 8 did apply, but it was proved that in the circumstances the right could be restricted.”

Nick Hawkins, solicitor at Stewarts Law, says: “The decision has caused something of a stir, with it being suggested in some areas that this has given employers carte blanche to rummage through employees private communications. It has not.

“It is not new that employers are able to access their employees’ private storage devices to retrieve their confidential material, in an effort to protect their business interests.”

Kathryn Dooks, employment partner at Kemp Little, says the decision is“actually broadly in line with existing English employment tribunals decisions in this area”.

Sarah Rushton, employment partner at Moon Beever, says: “There is a common misconception that employees have an absolute right to privacy at work.

“However, employers can legitimately review private emails sent over their workplace systems if appropriate safeguards are put in place. An employer may have a genuine concern that its systems are being abused, either by excessive use for private purposes or for nefarious reasons. The moral of the story is for employers to have appropriate policies in place for dealing with this.”

Issue: 7683 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll