Using Firm's Resources for Private Communication

[Himaginn]

Interesting that this news item was considered worthy of European news topics:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35314038

I would have thought that it's really obvious that if you use your employer's resources for private communications, then you are well outside of the contract.

 

[Brigadier]

Taking of employment contracts, what is the point of them, given that the employer can enforce a new contract on an employee anyway?

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Interesting that this news item was considered worthy of European news topics:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35314038

I would have thought that it's really obvious that if you use your employer's resources for private communications, then you are well outside of the contract.

Really? It would depend on the contract detail.

 

[jockscott]

Interesting that this news item was considered worthy of European news topics:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35314038

I would have thought that it's really obvious that if you use your employer's resources for private communications, then you are well outside of the contract.

So,, if someones wife rings her husbands company mobile, lets say in an emergency, then he should be liable to disciplinary procedures because he's using a company resource for private communications? Get real man.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Taking of employment contracts, what is the point of them, given that the employer can enforce a new contract on an employee anyway?

But then if an employee sees fit and events lead to a tribunal, they can challenge anything in their contract should it be used against them and it will be upheld if the particular contract condition is deemed unreasonable/unfair.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Taking of employment contracts, what is the point of them, given that the employer can enforce a new contract on an employee anyway?

They state the conditions of your employment from both sides.

If you don't like it, you may leave.

 

[Brigadier]

So, doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of the contract in the first place, in that the employer can do what they want, and the employee can withdraw their labour as they wish?

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, the terms will state reasonable ways to deal with disputes and other issues which have been agreed, with trade unions if present in the company, or other representatives.

Obviously if the management is so inclined to include unreasonable conditions then the employee is left with a stark choice.

Withdrawing their labour usually means going on strike but if the conditions are such that you don't want to work there then you don't have to.
There is recourse to action for constructive dismissal if these conditions deteriorate during a term of employment.

 

[mattylad]

The thing about this case is that they used Yahoo Messenger - a free service so the only thing that they owned was the resources (pc, net, his time).
He had a works account and a personal account - the personal account although accessed from work using their resources is not under their control and they should not have any authority to snoop into it's personal contents especially as much of it will\may have been sent to or from his personal account on his own time and own equipment etc.

Should the employers also be allowed to go through your bank account just because they pay your wages into it?
Should they be able to take my phone off me and read the text and email messages on it just because I have received them while at work?

No they should not and even with this ruling - in the UK they cannot -this ruling does not affect the UK at all.

As mentioned, it all depends upon what is written in your contract, if that contract omits to mention an acceptable use or no use policy for the company resources then they would be on a sticky wicket.

I heard that there were other reasons why this guy was sacked, the internet use was just used to facilitate it.

 

[Himaginn]

Interesting that this news item was considered worthy of European news topics:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35314038

I would have thought that it's really obvious that if you use your employer's resources for private communications, then you are well outside of the contract.

So,, if someones wife rings her husbands company mobile, lets say in an emergency, then he should be liable to disciplinary procedures because he's using a company resource for private communications? Get real man.

That would be an incoming call, therefore at little control or cost to the employer or the employee. I think any reasonable employer would recognise the need for emergency contact.

 

[Himaginn]

The thing about this case is that they used Yahoo Messenger - a free service so the only thing that they owned was the resources (pc, net, his time).
He had a works account and a personal account - the personal account although accessed from work using their resources is not under their control and they should not have any authority to snoop into it's personal contents especially as much of it will\may have been sent to or from his personal account on his own time and own equipment etc.

Should they be able to take my phone off me and read the text and email messages on it just because I have received them while at work?

No they should not and even with this ruling - in the UK they cannot -this ruling does not affect the UK at all.

As mentioned, it all depends upon what is written in your contract, if that contract omits to mention an acceptable use or no use policy for the company resources then they would be on a sticky wicket.

I heard that there were other reasons why this guy was sacked, the internet use was just used to facilitate it.

He broke company policy by using a work account to talk to his family.........
Mr Barbulescu's employer had sacked him after finding he had been using a Yahoo Messenger account to speak to both his fiancee and his brother, despite having been asked to set up the account for work purposes only, the seven judges said.
The company had also banned private use of the internet at work.
When confronted, Mr Barbulescu had denied violating the policy, the judges found.
And the company had therefore been justified in reading both the work and private correspondence on the account - some of it highly sensitive.

It is abundantly clear that he broke company policy!
He was using his company's account!

Suppose I, say, use company equipment and account to post hateful messages on, say, FarceBook. The post is traced back to the company and brings that company into disrepute?
I think it is sensible to have company policy which restricts the use of company accounts and equipment.
Break that policy/contract and you are liable to disciplinary procedure. Obviously, the penalty should be in line with the nature or potential damage of the offence.

 

[^woody^]

If the employee uses a secure connection, then the employer does not know the contents. It's not that difficult.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

Not everyone knows that for the first two years of employment you have pretty much zero rights, they can sack you and you cannot contest it. After two years, they have to obey various rules unless it is gross misconduct such as punching someone. In other words, if your employer is decent, you are okay, but if you happen to work for a nasty piece of work, you are sunk. This two year rule is iffy in my opinion.

 

[^woody^]

they can sack you and you cannot contest it.

That's not correct.

There are several circumstances when the dismissal would be automatically unfair, and so the two year criteria would not apply.

There are also the terms under contract which will always apply regardless of length of service.

The type of employer that would snoop on employees would be the type that would not be too concerned about employment law in any case.

Above all that, the hoops that a claimant needs to jump through to prove a claim makes it difficult even after the two year period.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

they can sack you and you cannot contest it.

That's not correct.

There are several circumstances when the dismissal would be automatically unfair, and so the two year criteria would not apply.

What would those examples be? My understanding is they can dismiss you at will.