Monitoring Of Employee's Communications A Breach Of Human Rights

A college employee has been awarded 3,000 Euros in damages plus legal costs after the European Court of Human Rights ruled (Copland v UK) that the monitoring of her telephone, email and Internet use was a breach of her right to a private life and correspondence under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Lynette Copland started working for Carmarthenshire College in 1991. In 1995, she began working closely with the newly appointed Deputy Principal (DP).

In 1998, Ms Copland became aware that the DP had contacted another campus of the College to make enquiries about a visit she had made there with a male colleague. She also discovered that her telephone, email and Internet use were being monitored, at the DP's instigation, and believed that he, or those acting on his behalf, had contacted people whom she had telephoned in order to identify who they were and what was the purpose of the call.

At this time, the College did not have a policy regarding the monitoring of electronic communications.

Ms Copland alleged that the monitoring activity occurred over a long period. She was the only employee being monitored and the extent of the activity amounted to an interference with her right to respect for private life and correspondence under article 8 of the ECHR. Her case was against the Government because it was directly responsible for the actions of the College as it is a publicly funded body.

The Government contended that the monitoring was justified. It said that it had only occurred over a short period of time and merely consisted of the analysis of automatically generated information to determine the level of private use of College facilities. It also argued that its action had a basis in domestic law as the College was authorised, as a statutory body, to do anything 'necessary and expedient' to provide further and higher education.

In examining the scope of 'private life', the Court ruled that, in accordance with case law, this covered personal telephone calls made from work. Logically, it therefore followed that personal emails and information derived from tracking Ms Copland's personal Internet use would also be covered. As no warning had been given that the monitoring would take place, it was reasonable for her to expect that her personal communications would be private. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the collection and storage of personal information did amount to an interference with her right to respect for her private life and correspondence within the meaning or article 8 and rejected the Government's claim that it had taken place 'in accordance with the law'.

The Court went on to note that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 does set out provisions regulating the circumstances in which employers can monitor employee communications, but the Act was not in force at the relevant time.

Employers are advised to take care over any interference with regard to employees' permitted private use of workplace communication systems. Employees should be notified if their communications are to be monitored and the employer must have a sound basis for doing so. Such monitoring must also comply with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Contact Dean Parnell on 08701 417 154 or at d.parnell@sydneymitchell.co.uk for advice on any aspect of workplace electronic communications policies.