Internet Newsletter for Lawyers
May/June 2006, by Delia Venables

Staff Computer and E-mail Policies
by Jeremy Holt

This article, and the associated specimen computer and email use policy (see later) were written for a lecture which I gave earlier this year. It can be considered either as advice for clients, or advice for a law firm or chambers itself.

Employees can get up to all sorts of mischief using computers and e-mail. Such hassles include racial and sexual harassment, downloading of pornography, defamation of management, customers or competitors, breach of confidence, copyright infringement, inadvertent formation of binding contracts, excessive time on the internet in working hours and breaches of either the Computer Misuse Act 1990 or the Data Protection Act 1998. To try to combat these potential problems and to provide staff with some guidance, employers are increasingly adopting computer use and e-mail policies. More than half of all businesses in the United States now have such policies. I can see a mini-boom for lawyers in this country helping draft such policies. Every business is different and no one size fits all. It is surprising how tough Tribunals are prepared to be about the dismissal of employees for downloading of pornography, particularly if there is a policy in force forbidding this. One question that clients often ask me in these circumstances is whether they are required to notify the Police. In my experience, the Police are not interested unless the pornography is being sold by the employee or it involves children.

The Investigation

Employers sometimes wonder whether they have the right to monitor voice calls or e-mail messages and there are a number of myths about this. There is no legal distinction between phone calls and e-mail messages for these purposes. Where employers have told employees that their calls will not be monitored or given an indication that that is the case then monitoring will be in breach of both the terms of employment and of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 SI 2000/2699 (“the Regulations”) came into force in 2000. The Regulations state that it is lawful for an employer to monitor and record certain types of communications in restricted circumstances without the consent of the sender or recipient. Without the Regulations the employer would be in breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Under the Regulations an employer who wants to intercept communications must make all reasonable efforts to inform every person who may use the system that interception may take place. This is easy with employees as notification of monitoring can be given. It is more difficult with third parties. One possibility is to include an automatic warning about monitoring at the end of all external emails.

Employers need to remember that even if interception of messages is carried out by them in a legitimate manner, any use by them of the information gathered must be proportionate and in accordance with the data protection legislation (e.g. it should not be passed on to third parties without good cause or the consent of the employee concerned). The data protection legislation prohibits the abuse of data about living individuals, e.g. by such data being used for purposes for which the individual has not consented. The Information Commissioner (who deals with data protection) has published a code on monitoring at work. Although this code does not have the force of law it can be used in any enforcement action by the Information Commissioner and may be referred to in employment tribunal proceedings. The code emphasises that monitoring of messages should only take place when there is a real business need and the methods used should not be unduly intrusive into an employee's privacy. Employees have a reasonable expectation that they can keep their personal lives private which means that they are entitled to some privacy at work. It is recommended that employers should wherever possible avoid opening emails, especially ones that clearly show that they are private or personal. Employees should be aware that monitoring is taking place and told the reasons for it and the means used. Covert monitoring will only be legitimate in the most exceptional of circumstances such as the detection of crime or equivalent wrongdoing. It is good practice for this monitoring to be carried out by someone other than the employee's line manager e.g. by security or human resources. In this way, such personal information that is picked up about employees can be sifted so that only the most relevant ever becomes known by those who work with the employee.

Not the Answer

Clients sometimes believe that all their ills can be cured by a well-drafted disclaimer at the foot of an e-mail. E-mail disclaimers are of little value other than to notify the recipient that the contents of the e-mail are confidential and to offer a method of reporting any misdirection. They can look particularly silly if a one line message is followed by a seven line disclaimer (large firms of Accountants please take note). E-mail disclaimers are no substitute either for a proper e-mail policy within a business or for the information that must be shown on a letter.

Overlooked Requirements

From a legal point of view, emails count as "letters" for the purposes of disclosure of information about the sender.

The following information must appear on company letters:
• the full name of the company
• the registered number of the company
• the address of the registered office
• an indication that that address is the registered office
• the country of registration of the company.

For partnerships of 20 partners or less, the names of the partners must all appear together with an address for service.

Partnerships of more than 20 may simply say that a list of the partners is available at a particular address.

Sole traders must give their real name and an address (in addition to whatever trading name that they have chosen to use).

Businesses who do not abide by these rules risk looking amateur or newly started (or both). Some employers now provide employees with two different templates for e-mail messages – one with all the company information and the other without (making it clear that it is a personal message from the sender and is not sent on company business).

Consequences of Failure

There is no reason to differentiate between a written letter sent by post and a letter sent by e-mail. Not all businesses are abiding by this at the moment; word seems to be slow to percolate through. There are a number of consequences of failing to abide by the Companies Act 1985 and the Business Names Act 1985 in this respect:

• it is a criminal offence BOTH by the company concerned AND by the person who authorises the communication on behalf of the company (Section 349(3) Companies Act 1985)

• if it relates to an order for goods and the company's name is not mentioned in the e-mail the individual who sent it can be personally liable for the order (Section 349(4) Companies Act 1985)

• difficulties can arise in bringing legal proceedings to enforce a contract made where the appropriate information has not appeared on the company's notepaper or in the company's e-mail (Section 5, Business Names Act 1985)

The Answer

You need to get the security policy across to everyone using the employer's computers (who, of course, are not necessarily all employees). The staff handbook and employment terms are a means to that end backed by emphasis on induction. I have read of one employer who gives new employees a copy of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 when they start (they cost £3.40 each from TSO, formerly HMSO, telephone 0870 600 5522). They are also available free online from: www.opsi.gov.uk (the ISBN of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 is 010 541 8900).

The point can be backed up by reminders on computer screens and regular training. The same rules should also be applied to any in-coming freelance contractors (often overlooked). Internal audits should check that security policies are being followed and the side should not be let down by senior management (as it frequently is). The aim should be that no user of the firm's computers could reasonably argue that they were not aware of the rules of use.

Jeremy Holt is Head of Computer Law Group at Clark Holt, Commercial Solicitors, www.clarkholt.com.
email jeremyh@clarkholt.com.

A specimen computer and email use policy is provided at n0605computerspecimen.doc (relative addressing) pr at www.venables.co.uk/n0605computerspecimen.doc (absolute addressing). This is in Microsoft Word format and you are welcome to download it and adapt it for your own organisation.

Back to Contents.