Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50875
By Carole McAfee Wallace, lawyer, and Nicholas Caughey, associate, WeirFoulds LLP Employee computer use and privacy You are in-house counsel for a new dot-com retailer, XYZ.ca Inc., which has not yet established a computer/ Internet/e-mail policy for employees. One day Amy, the director of XYZ.ca Inc.'s information technology depart- ment, reveals in confidence that while performing maintenance on XYZ. ca Inc.'s network, she discovered that Bob, a web designer, has been accessing and storing adult images from the web on the internal hard drive of the company's workstation computer, which he uses. Amy found Bob's offending material in a folder on his computer that was password locked, hidden from other network users, and labelled "personal." Can Bob successfully assert that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy over these files so as to undermine the propriety of Amy's discovery of the images? The next day, Carlotta, the director of human resources at XYZ.ca Inc., contacts you to determine if there are grounds to discipline Bob, in light of the fact that Bob has not breached a written policy and there was no circulation of the offending material. Should Bob be disciplined? Carlotta later reports to you that another employee, Dan, made disparaging remarks about XYZ.ca Inc. on his Facebook page, including criticizing his supervisor, accusing the company of being "run by crooks," and encouraging his friends to boycott XYZ.ca Inc.'s products. What can you do? Emily comes to you complaining that Frank, a fellow employee, has posted threatening and derogatory remarks about her on Twitter. There is a personality conflict between these two employees. You should not get involved in this dispute, which is outside of the workplace. INHOUSE AUGUST 2011 • 13 (a) (b) (c) (a) (d) Y (a) (b) (c) (b) rue False (a) T 4 T discipline erminate 3 and beyond Investigate Dan determine him. Nothing. the the r es. T s elationship Bob' s and What scope for whether cause. Yes. eached (c) No. (b) br No. 2 Bob' a ermination conduct this allegations, Dan Dan which Discipline conduct gr Maybe. e ef wers It drive Y the es. computer No. 1 material on pr of depends to written of Bob' for Inc. sufforts XYZ.ca was all indicate is as ficient eason to any has r an is cause impacts for has ounds of says is the or including outside s employer' the does author monitoring ests. inter of of work these Dan' found. workplace not is XYZ.ca for employee ohibit the cir caused . objectively policy discipline. s Inc.' harm r inter any occur should easonable (e.g. in only ests in one the cir no and statements s on unlimited it cumstances, material om that the to Amy rights personal monitor fr company' opening s including . the was if the pr s operty Bob' . foldered the stor the has employee employment Facebook and, his own if so, account time manner cumstances. complained). has workstation on the in har d is