In December of last year, Arbitrator Abramsky upheld a grievance that challenged the reasonableness of system monitoring conducted by an employer, though only to the extent the employer’s workplace monitoring policy (which is required in Ontario) did not provide clear enough notice. She accepted the employer’s argument that employee personal use of workplace systems is a matter of informed choice, reasoning in part as follows:
The Union asserts that it is common for employees to check their personal emails while at work. I am sure that is true, but employees can choose how they send and receive personal emails while at work, and on what device. With knowledge of the Employer’s monitoring practices, an employee may make an informed choice. Having to use a personal device for personal emails may represent a change for some, it is not an undue burden. If an employee considers it to be so, however, they can choose to use the Employer’s equipment, WiFi or network, with the knowledge that the email may be monitored. Consequently, I am persuaded that the Employer’s EMP in regard to emails is a reasonable exercise of management rights, with one exception beyond clarifying how it determines if a private email pertains to Rideauwood.
Maintenance of network security is of utmost concern, and is supported by robust monitoring of employee system use. Most employers, however, allow personal use of their systems that attracts a limited expectation of privacy. So long this personal use is a privilege and not a right, the privacy interest associated with it cannot prevail over an employer’s interest in monitoring, and the provision of clear notice ought to be the only legal requirement for lawful monitoring. This decision supports this argument.
All About Information 