Email 


Most medium to large employers install software that searches for offensive keywords, indicating private or malicious traffic, and while employers should not open personal emails, except in exceptional circumstances, they can monitor email usage for anything unreasonable or inappropriate. 


For example, a major transport company warns in its “acceptable use” policy against inappropriate usage including “excessive sending or forwarding of cartoons, junk mail or jokes and emailing music, text or other content that is protected by copyright” as well as “excessive quantity of email” in general. It states that inappropriate and excessive email usage could lead to disciplinary action. 


It also states that employees should not use work email addresses to register on websites unrelated to work, and it warns that the use of work email addresses to register on websites that are deemed inappropriate or that “could cause reputational damage” to the company could also lead to disciplinary action. 


The internet and email policy of a train company states that serious misuse may constitute gross misconduct. Among examples of misuse, it cites “private or freelance business”, “sending, forwarding or replying to offensive or obscene messages or attachments” and making “potentially libellous, untrue or malicious statements.” It also warns against the sending of hostile messages containing “vindictive, harassing, discriminatory or abusive comment or criticism of anyone, whether the target is another employee or any third party.” This could result in the sender being subject to the company disciplinary procedure, which could lead to dismissal. 


A policy at a local authority employer warns that “all email correspondence is logged and stored and will be made available for investigation of inappropriate use or content which may result in disciplinary action.”


One rep referred to a local authority employer which uses software to analyse “key words” which alerts them to abusive language being used internally, and “depending on the content it will issue a email warning to refrain from swearing or refer for further action.” However, the rep expressed concern that the software was being used “to monitor criticism of the council on the internet too”, with actions taken against employees for bringing “the council into disrepute”, as well as for being abusive to other council employees. 


The rep also referred to the repeated need to remind union members to “think before they post” remarks or content, with warnings that this could lead to disciplinary action or dismissal in extreme cases.


Another rep referred to “occasions when an employee’s email has been accessed to identify cases of potential misconduct such as breach of confidentiality” but this usually occurs only if an initial suspicion has been raised or there is a wider investigation into an individual. This has also resulted in disciplinary action in some cases. 


One rep also referred to a case where the human resources department was accessing the email accounts of trade union reps. However, the union found out about this, and following protests, procedures were agreed ensuring that email is only accessed for specific investigations and through established channels. 


In most cases, however, responses from reps suggest that while employers are able to monitor emails and internet use, usage by particular individuals is only investigated when particular suspicions are raised or as part of a broader investigation linked to other alleged indiscretions.