Australia Rejects Employee Privacy Dispute Via Email



The Australian information commissioner has dismissed an appeal by a man who accused his former employers of illegally monitoring their personal correspondence.

The appeal was denied because the information was obtained using the employee’s work laptop.

Shayano Madzikanda, the complainant, filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner in 2019, saying that his iCloud and personal email accounts had been accessed by his previous employer, Mecrus, a mining corporation. Madzikanda had utilised his work laptop for personal pursuits, including communicating with Mecrus’ competitors during working hours. He was fired after receiving an official letter, and his work laptop was confiscated. 

Madzikanda had asked for access to his laptop’s personal information, for Mecrus to remove the personal information on the laptop, and for compensation. He stated that the firm did not have a policy against keeping personal information on corporate computers, and that even if they did, it was not enforced during his tenure there.

Related link: Sending Private Chats At Work May Land You Consequences

In September 2021, a representative for the commissioner notified Madzikanda that the employer had not violated his right to privacy because of the Privacy Act’s “employee record” exception.

He further claimed that the employee handbook specified that all data produced, saved, or transferred on the company’s networks constituted “work product.” As the employee was aware that the work computer was not his property, any data documented on it may have been part of their personnel records because it was monitored and inspected on a regular basis.

The delegate went on to say that the employer does not require the workers’ consent in order for you to access or use the equipment that it issued to you in order to perform your employment duties,” as reported by The Guardian. Furthermore, he continued that the computer was a tool the respondent provided to you to carry out your employment duties, it remains the property of the respondent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *