12.05.2023

Privacy in the workplace – answering the burning questions for employers

It is the Employment Law Team’s favourite time of year – no, not Christmas, summer or going away to the family bach. It’s Privacy Week, duh!

To celebrate, we took the opportunity to answer four burning questions that we often get from employers about privacy-related matters in the workplace. 

Can I put up surveillance cameras in the workplace? 

There are a number of reasons why an employer may wish to use surveillance cameras in the workplace – for example, for health and safety reasons or to deter theft.  As expected, where an employer utilises video surveillance in the workplace it must comply with the Privacy Act 2020 (Act).

The Act contains 13 information privacy principles (IPPs), which govern the use of personal information collected by an agency.  Using video surveillance touches on nearly all the IPPs, but will certainly include:

  • IPP 1: Personal information may not be collected unless it is done for a lawful purpose and collection is necessary for that purpose;
  • IPP 3: The agency must take reasonable steps to ensure the individual is aware of the fact of collection, the purpose of collection, the intended recipients, details of the collecting agency, and the right of correction;
  • IPP 4: Personal information may not be collected by unlawful means; and
  • IPP 10: Personal information obtained for one purpose must not be used for any other purpose.

Failure to comply with any of the IPPs can result in a complaint being made to the Privacy Commissioner; or where footage obtained in breach of the Privacy Act is used to dismiss or discipline an employee, the action could be held to be unjustifiable.  One way to ensure compliance is to implement a surveillance policy in the workplace.  To meet their statutory good faith requirements, an employer should consult with employees prior to implementing such a policy.  The policy should cover off the above IPPs – why the surveillance is being undertaken, what will be recorded, what the footage will be used for, who can access it, and how it will be stored.

If an employer has a policy regarding surveillance cameras, then employees will most likely be aware of the camera’s existence.  This type of overt surveillance is generally less risky for an employer to rely on to dismiss or discipline an employee.  By contrast, covert surveillance (where the employees are not aware of the surveillance camera(s)) contains more legal risk but there may be circumstances it is justified, for example, a thief is operating in their workplace and the employer wishes to catch the culprit red-handed. 

Can I take disciplinary action over an employee’s posts on their social media accounts? 

It is well established that for an employer to justify taking disciplinary action against an employee’s out of work conduct there must be a causal link between the conduct and the employment relationship.  With ever-increasing use of social media blurring the distinction between the workplace and an employee’s private life, we are seeing social media affect the workplace and employment relationships more and more.

Sometimes there may be a clear link between the employee’s social media conduct and the employment relationship.  For example, an employee posting negatively about their manager or the business or where workplace bullying has bled into Facebook messages or Instagram DMs.  But what if there are instances where social media activity is not readily linked to employment?

In the recent Australian case of Corry v Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) upheld the summary dismissal of an employee who posted highly offensive material on his personal Facebook account supporting the 2020 Melbourne anti-vaccination and lockdown protest.  The FWC found that the conduct was in breach of ACTU’s policies, which was serious misconduct and constituted a valid reason for dismissal.  The FWC held that while the employee had the “Right to hold and express a strongly held view that did not however provide the Applicant with the unqualified right to publicly espouse views that were contrary to the interests and values of his employer.”

This seems to be in line with New Zealand’s position where the Employment Court has held that Facebook posts (even if protected by privacy settings) may not be regarded as protected communications “beyond the reach of employment process given that the information or posts can be shared to a near limitless audience.” 

What should I do when the company receives a Privacy Act request? 

IPP 6 of the Act gives individuals the right to ask an agency to provide confirmation of, access to, or correction of, the personal information it holds about them.  An agency must respond as soon as possible, but within 20 working days, and can provide the information, refuse to provide the information, transfer the request to the agency that they believe holds the information (this must be done within 10 working days), confirm it does not hold the information or does not hold it in a way that is easily retrievable, or neither confirm nor deny.  

A request may be refused on a number of grounds.  In an employment context, grounds for refusal may include:

  • Section 49: an employer may refuse the request if the disclosure could cause harm (“serious threat” or “serious harassment”) to another individual;
  • Section 50: an employer may refuse the request if the information is evaluative material (unless the person who supplied the material consents). Note that ‘evaluative material’ has a specific limited meaning in the Act;
  • Section 52: an employer may refuse access to information if it might disclose a trade secret or unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the employer or the person who supplied the information;
  • Section 53(a): an employer may refuse a request if the information does not exist, or it cannot be found by reasonable efforts;
  • Section 53(b): an employer may refuse the request if the disclosure of the information would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another person, including a deceased person; and
  • Section 53(d): an employer may refuse access if the disclosure of the information would breach legal professional privilege.

It should be noted that each of these grounds for refusal has ‘fine print’ that needs to be satisfied before an employer can refuse access to personal information.

Generally, an employer should not charge people to access or correct their personal information.  However, there are some circumstances where it may be appropriate for an employer to charge an individual to access their information, e.g. the amount of material sought is significant or difficult to collate.  Any costs must be reasonable and the applicant must be made aware of the costs before charges are imposed.

Does my workplace need a privacy-related policy? 

While not specifically required under the Act, it is a good idea for employers to adopt a privacy-related policy.  Good reasons to have a policy include: 

  • To identify the company’s privacy officer. The Act requires all agencies to have at least one privacy officer who ensures the agency’s privacy obligations are being met and respond to any requests under the Act.  Privacy officers are also a great mechanism to encourage and upskill other employees around privacy law.  
  • Developing privacy-related policies, which may touch on social media, surveillance in the workplace, and handling personal or confidential information on work systems, helps set out clear expectations and guidelines for employees. This helps provide guidance where an employer may be collecting personal information, protect against misuse of client or employee personal information and outline when disciplinary action may be appropriate.
  • To make clear the employer can access information on their IT systems, including email traffic, web history and other electronic folders.
  • To provide guidance in the event of a privacy breach. Under the Act, a notifiable privacy breach is a privacy breach that it is reasonable to believe has caused serious harm to an affected individual(s) or is likely to do so.  The Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s expectation is that a breach notification should be made to its Office no later than 72 hours after agencies are aware of a notifiable privacy breach.  A privacy policy may help a company assess whether the breach needs to be notified and guide the relevant individual(s) through that process. 

If you have any questions about the Privacy Act or need help developing or amending a privacy-related policy please get in touch with our Employment Team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
My cross-lease neighbour wants me to consent to their extension. Can I refuse?
From time to time a cross-lease property owner may be asked by their cross-lease neighbour for their consent to specific matters, such as proposed structural alterations or additions to their neighbou...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
Contract stock edit
I have a land covenant (or an easement) registered on my title that restricts the use of my land. Can I get this removed?
Where land is subject to covenants and easements, owners might find themselves in a position where they are unintentionally or unknowingly in breach of a covenant or easement or have purchased land th...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.