monitoring company emails

steve1500

The company should have an email policy that sets out precisely what the rules are regarding monitoring.

Full monitoring of emails is usually only done on the authority of someone pretty high up and they have fully documented why they are doing it.

If someone knew another persons email was being monitored all the time they could have some right fun if they set up an email account such as " I agree with you Fred your manager is a complete waste of space & money"

FBaby

My manager asked me and my colleague for us to set our accounts so he could access our inbox. He did the same in return.this was mainly so we could cover during holidays. I think we used it much more to our benefit than he did! It is not unusual practice in my organisation.

molerat

Work (a clue is in the name) e-mail, the same as work snail mail, belongs to work not you.

BitterAndTwisted

Your manager is perfectly entitled to see everything if that is their choice. If they are sending you your emails with their comments at least the monitoring isn't covert.

"I'm having quite a few problems with him at the moment with bullying and abuse" Is this only our perception or is it actual bullying and abuse? Going on the email thing alone it sounds to me like you're being micro-managed and this could be due to your manager not having confidence in you being just left to get on with things on your own. I have encountered a couple of micro-managers myself in the past and my strategy was to consult them for advice and then offer my ownsolutions. Often.They both got bored with it in the end because it became obvious that I could manage quite well without their constant input

flashnazia

Is there an internet policy that allows monitoring like this?

Monitoring employee's Internet breaches human rights, says ECHR
12 April, 2007


»!Privacy | Wiretapping

(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)


The Welsh Government, through Carmarthenshire College, was found in breach
of human rights by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for having
monitored one of the college employee's e-mails, internet traffic and
telephone calls.


As the College is publicly funded, Lynette Copland sued the government for
infringing Art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that says
"everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence".


The government argued that the monitoring was carried out in order to
establish whether Copland had extensively used college resources for
personal communication, but the court ruled that: "The court is not
convinced by the government's submission that the college was authorised
under its statutory powers to do 'anything necessary or expedient' for the
purposes of providing higher and further education, and finds the argument
unpersuasive".


Copland claimed that her correspondence had been monitored for about 18
months by the headmaster of the college who even contacted some of the
people with whom she had communicated to ask for the nature of their
communications. The government admitted the monitoring but stated it had
lasted only a few months.


The Court ruling was that "According to the court's case-law, telephone
calls from business premises are prima facie covered by the notions of
'private life' and 'correspondence' " and that "It follows logically that
emails sent from work should be similarly protected under article eight, as
should information derived from the monitoring of personal internet usage."


"The applicant in the present case had been given no warning that her calls
would be liable to monitoring, therefore she had a reasonable expectation as
to the privacy of calls made from her work telephone. The same expectation
should apply in relation to the applicant's e-mail and internet usage."


The college had no policy to inform employees they might be monitored and
Copland had received no warning on this.


"The ruling is important in that it reinforces the need for a statutory
basis for any interference with respect to private use of a
telecommunications system by an employee... The lawful business practice
regulations (part of RIPA) allow an employer to monitor and intercept
business communications, so the Court is implying that private use of a
telecommunications system, assuming it is authorised via an acceptable use
policy, can be protected." said Dr Chris Pounder, a privacy specialist at
Pinsent Masons.


The Court awarded Copland 3,000 Euros in damages and 6,000 Euros in costs
and expenses.


European Court of Human Rights - Copland vs. The United Kingdom (3.04.2007)
http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/253.html

Uncertain

flashnazia wrote: »

Is there an internet policy that allows monitoring like this?

The college case you quote is very different.

The main issue was that the person had not been warned in any way that their internet use and email may be monitored.

It is quite normal in many academic environments to have a policy that specifically ALLOWS reasonable private use of email and internet. Also, there is a reasonable expectation that their unpublished research is private. This would be unusual in many other fields and any personal use is often prohibited.

In the OP's case there is no suggestion that it is being done covertly and it is quite common for a manager to have sight of all of their staff's correspondence.

consumers_revenge

We have a 'security officer' in my work..

God he's nosey. He checks everything everyone does, can see all web traffic people generate, blocked webmail ( this I do understand the reasons... )

So I now do all my web browsing and hotmail/emailing on my phone at dinnertimes sat so he can see me. He cant see what sites Im on or snoop through our email

Pi55es him off no end :T

VERY Satisfiying!

flashnazia

Uncertain wrote: »

The college case you quote is very different.

The main issue was that the person had not been warned in any way that their internet use and email may be monitored.

It is quite normal in many academic environments to have a policy that specifically ALLOWS reasonable private use of email and internet. Also, there is a reasonable expectation that their unpublished research is private. This would be unusual in many other fields and any personal use is often prohibited.

In the OP's case there is no suggestion that it is being done covertly and it is quite common for a manager to have sight of all of their staff's correspondence.

There was no policy in place when the employee was monitored.

If there is no good reason for the monitoring and there is no policy to say that it will be monitored then my opinion is that it may be a breach of regulations.
More info and commentary here:

http://plc.practicallaw.com/1-369-8081

Impact of subsequent legislation

The ECHR noted that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/2699) (LBP Regulations) made under RIPA, had not come into force at the relevant time in this case (for background, see News brief “Regulation of investigatory powers: Lawful Business Practice Regulations”, https://www.practicallaw.com/9-101-3059).


This legislation makes it a criminal offence for employers to intercept employees’ communications unless both parties consent, or the employer has taken reasonable steps to inform the employee that their communications might be monitored. In this case, as C had not consented or been informed of the monitoring, any interceptions by the College would not only have been in breach of Article 8, but could also have resulted in a criminal conviction if RIPA had been in force.

It should also be borne in mind that there are other potential consequences of a breach like the College’s. For example, if an employee’s communications were monitored in breach of Article 8, RIPA and, indeed, the Data Protection Act 1998 (1998 Act) (see below), this could amount to a breach of the duty of trust and confidence, entitling an employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal, or to claim unfair dismissal if he was dismissed because of the monitoring. Significant compensation could be awarded against the employer and, in the case of constructive dismissal, any restrictive covenants would fall away.

RedSoleShoes

As others have said, yes it is allowed that your work email can be accessed/monitored/read by your company.

What seems odd in your case OP is, firstly, that your emails are auto-forwarded to him rather than him having your inbox set up on his email account and, secondly, that you mention bullying issues. You have not mentioned that he wanted your emails for contingency reasons at work and this would generally be the only reason for regular access to another person's emails.

Companies will generally not 'monitor' emails unless they suspect underhand behaviour, in which case there are procedures that should be followed to gain access. Again though, this depends on your company policies and procedures.

I suspect you have not told us the full story so it is quite hard to give any constructive advice other than if you think your boss is being unreasonable and bullying you then need to take it higher.

BobQ

A firm of only 30 must have concerns that they miss out on business though emails to individuals who are away from the office on holiday etc and this may explain the approach although if this is the main concern they could set up a generic account for all staff to use and then have personal email accounts for internal use.

My view is the way this is being done is untrusting. There may be nothing illegal but its not a way of working I would like. If they suspect people are abusing the system fine but this approach is a form of bullying in my view. Its the equivalent of twenty years ago standing behind someone for hours on end while they work, lawful but oppressive.

I would look for another job.