04.07.2024

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 colleagues really are.

The short answer (and the safest one, from an employee perspective), is that employees should not assume communications on company platforms, systems or devices are private.

Employment agreements and workplace policies can, and often do, set expectations around the use and monitoring of workplace platforms and systems, and employees should look closely at these documents to see if this is the case.

Even if employment documents are silent, it may still be reasonable for an employer to access communications on its own platforms, systems and devices, but it depends on the circumstances. Employers certainly do not have free reign in accessing and monitoring what employees say to each other.

What, why and how the information is being accessed are all good questions to ask. There must be a lawful reason for accessing the information, and it must be done in a way that is lawful, fair and not unreasonably intrusive. Listening in on workers’ conversations via video or audio surveillance, for example, would not be lawful if the purpose of the surveillance was for general security.

Employers are also required to take reasonable steps to ensure the individual is aware the information is being collected (unless a specific exception applies!). In the example above, the employer would generally be expected to have told the workers that the surveillance was capturing conversations between colleagues. Even then, the collection of this information would still need to be necessary in terms of the reason for surveillance in the first place.

It is important to know that the Privacy Act enables an individual to request any personal information held by an agency. Personal information is a broad term that means information about an identifiable individual. As you can imagine, it potentially captures a wide raft of information, from the benign to the more secret and sensitive.

A personal information request could, for example, request correspondence held by the employer that is between specific employees and mentions, or is about, the person making the request. So, employees should also be aware that seemingly private communications may also be accessible in this way. A timely reminder to watch what you say (or write) at work! 

If you have any questions about privacy in employment, please get in touch with our Employment Team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

 

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

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

Close call on contribution: Beca decision confirms 10-year longstop does not bar contribution claims
In a 3-2 split decision, the Supreme Court in Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd v Wellington City Council [2024] NZSC 117 confirmed that contribution claims are not barred by the Building Act 2004...
11.10.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes & Insurance
Business man document
Addressing directors’ personal safety
The Companies Act 1993 (CA93) currently requires all company directors to make their residential addresses available as a matter of public record.  However, in recent times, incidents of stalking and...
Wielding the Secateurs: The High Court’s Pruning of Potentially Disruptive Decisions
Every now and then courts have to self-correct to prevent errant off-shoots of legal reasoning advancing into the law.  In the decision, IAG New Zealand Ltd v Degen [2024] NZHC 397, the High Court t...
19.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
UK Supreme Court: Are collateral warranties considered construction contracts?
The UK Supreme Court recently released Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23 determining that a collateral warranty used in the constr...
17.09.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
shutterstock
Bowen case part 2 – the ins and outs of the determination
In our last article, we wrote about what protected disclosures are and who can make them. In this article, we discuss the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determination, Bowen v Bank of New ...
13.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Are trustees bound to relationship property agreements?
In Rawson v Prescott [2024] NZHC 1919, the High Court addressed a dispute involving trust property and a relationship property agreement. Mr RR, trustee of the GR Family Trust, sought summary judgment...
10.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
shutterstock
Bowen case part 1 – blowing the whistle
You may have heard of the term ‘whistleblowing’, but have you heard of ‘protected disclosures’? Protected disclosures are a creature of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers)...
10.09.2024 Posted in Employment
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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