Can i sack someone for excessive internet usage

Torry_Quine

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

To me that shows a manager that can't manage. As soon as it was apparent, the employee should have been pulled up on it - not allowed to carry on.

She said it had only come up by chance so hadn't been aware to stop it. Nevertheless my argument stands that we should not need to be told.

scheming_gypsy

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Nevertheless my argument stands that we should not need to be told.

yes we should as Copland vs The UK proved.

http://www.5rb.com/case/Copland-v-UK

Summary

Right to respect for private life and correspondence - Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights - Scope of "private life" and "correspondence" - Whether interference "in accordance with the law" - Monitoring of telephone calls, email and internet usage at work - No policy in place - No statutory provision for such monitoring


Held

Finding a violation of Art 8:
(1) Telephone calls, e-mails and personal internet usage on business premises are prima facie “private life” and “correspondence” for the purposes of Art 8. As C had not been warned of the monitoring she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The collection and storage of personal information relating to C’s telephone calls, as well as to her e-mail and internet usage, without her knowledge, amounted to an interference with her right to respect for her private life and correspondence within the meaning of Art 8

Torry_Quine

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

yes we should as Copland vs The UK proved.

http://www.5rb.com/case/Copland-v-UK

Summary

Right to respect for private life and correspondence - Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights - Scope of "private life" and "correspondence" - Whether interference "in accordance with the law" - Monitoring of telephone calls, email and internet usage at work - No policy in place - No statutory provision for such monitoring


Held

Finding a violation of Art 8:
(1) Telephone calls, e-mails and personal internet usage on business premises are prima facie “private life” and “correspondence” for the purposes of Art 8. As C had not been warned of the monitoring she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The collection and storage of personal information relating to C’s telephone calls, as well as to her e-mail and internet usage, without her knowledge, amounted to an interference with her right to respect for her private life and correspondence within the meaning of Art 8

Very informative, I'm shocked!

DVardysShadow

Alecz wrote: »

The sites visited were shopping sites , fashion etc . But it was used most of the day and throughout the day . I checked the browsing history over the last 3 months . Its a disgrace . There is no way that she could have been productive . Some days she is on it continuously all day with 500-600 hits .

I dont see why i should let her stay. Why does the employee have all teh rights .

The question is, is it ok for me to check the person net access in this way. Checking the net there are conflicting opininons regarding privacy at work but is seems an employer can monitor internet access emails etc at work if he thinks something is not right.

While it is not unreasonable to check what is going on, I think the fact that you have found out it has been going on for at least 3 months shows that you have not really been on the ball. Now there is such a thing as trust and yours has been abused, but equally, are you keeping this person constructively engaged? Are you making your expectations clear?

I would say that the correct thing to do is to put a policy in place, making it clear you will monitor for violations of the policy. The best use of the current information is to put your own house in order - not to use it as a pretext to get rid of someone.

I suspect, from the way that the idea of an internet policy seems like water off a duck's back and the other issues you allude to, that she may not have a clear idea of your expectations. It would be best to work on communicating your expectations first - who knows, she may feel unsupported and neglected and may actually appreciate some positive leadership.

Once you have addressed your issues, you could think about whether she is addressing hers.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

... Do you have a locked PC policy or have you given her the tools to argue that somebody else must have used her PC while she was somewhere else?

I agree with this. You need a setup with personal logons and traceablility to show that the hits were due to this member of staff. It is not good enough to argue that it was not someone else, so it must have been her

scheming_gypsy

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Very informative, I'm shocked!

to be fair i only found out about it when i was on the similar end of where the OP's employee might find them self.
i was suspended for x, y and z on the internet but all the surrounding information was very suspect; a print out was given to my boss but he was 100 miles away and based at a different site... So to me that was pretty suspicious as there were only 2 people in that office who i'd met and not enough for them to associate me with the comment.... the comment didn't mention the company either so there was very little to tie it to me. So i set about finding everything i could regarding internet policy and covert monitoring etc.

yvonne13_2

Personal logons prove nothing, it only proves that someone has logged on to the systems.

scheming_gypsy

yvonne13 wrote: »

Personal logons prove nothing, it only proves that someone has logged on to the systems.

but when you do it properly (ie from the proxy / web server) along with a locked PC policy, the offender is either admitting to excessive internet usage or not locking their PC and allowing somebody else to use the internet.
When i worked for the NHS Pensions Agency somebody was actually suspended for leaving their desk and not locking their PC.

DVardysShadow

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Very informative, I'm shocked!

All the cause for shock disappears if the employer informs the employee that they will be monitored. So no big deal really

Torry_Quine

DVardysShadow wrote: »

All the cause for shock disappears if the employer informs the employee that they will be monitored. So no big deal really

I just don't see why someone's work computer output or searches wouldn't be monitored without being told. As I said if only work is being done it isn't a problem

Moffyr

Whether or not the employee has been fashion shopping or not, the first and foremost thing is the manager, the owner of the business or whoever is the person responsible (suppose it depends on the size of the business) needs to go away and either a. do a proper course on network management or b. pay/employ and liase with someone who has, so they can set up proper methods to control internet use, track it and control it. Liase with that person who is setting it up as they will have experience of the wording to use, then put a employee statement/method of practise in place, a training package in place and then get people to sign up with it into their contracts.

When i worked for the NHS Pensions Agency somebody was actually suspended for leaving their desk and not locking their PC.

System security is a huge thing, especially in agencies where data protection and national security or records are concerned. Ive had to do 4 courses so far as an employee and the first thing that is emphasised is ctrl alt delete and log out. you cant secure a room if all the doors are wide open....