Monitoring Workers' Emails

A turnaround on privacy in the workplace?

Privacy in the workplace is dead. Or so it was claimed in the media following the 2016 case of Bărbulescu v Romania, in which the European Court of Human Right (“ECtHR”) determined that it was lawful for an employer to have monitored an employee’s personal communications from a work email account. However, on appeal, there has been a change of view.

The facts

Mr Bărbulescu used his business email account to send personal communications, in breach of his employment contract. This was accidently discovered by his employers and ultimately led to his dismissal.

The ECtHR held that the Romanian courts were entitled to consider this evidence in deciding whether the dismissal was justified.

The appeal

This case was appealed to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, which reversed the original decision, confirming that the employer’s actions in monitoring the email communication of its employee were unlawful.

The Grand Chamber held that the employer had “failed to strike a fair balance between the interests at stake: namely Mr Bărbulescu’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, on the one hand, and his employer’s right to take measures in order to ensure the smooth running of the company, on the other”.

What does this mean?

This case doesn’t mean that there is a blanket prohibition on monitoring employees’ personal emails and communications. What it does mean is that employers need to make it clear to employees that monitoring might take place, and that there are adequate provisions in place to prevent abuse.

The ECHR has published some helpful Q&As dealing with the Grand Chamber’s decision

It’s clear that an employer who wishes to have the right to monitor an employee’s personal communications should:

  • Ensure employees are clearly made aware of the extent to which monitoring of their communications might take place. Ideally this should be set out in their contract of employment, with reference to a full and detailed policy that is also provided to the employee;
  • Consider carefully the purpose of the monitoring and its extent, as well as whether there might be a less intrusive way of monitoring. There is a difference between monitoring the volume of email traffic, for example, to monitoring the actual contents of emails. There needs to be a more pressing justification for the latter;
  • Consider how employees can be protected, for example, by ensuring that monitoring is undertaken by a limited number of appropriate persons and is limited in time.

These considerations are not new, and represent good practice for all employers who wish to monitor their employees’ communications. Ultimately, as with much employment law protection, it’s about acting reasonably and in a way that is proportionate to the aim that’s being pursued.


If you would like more information or advice relating to this article or an Employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Keely Rushmore on 01727 798046 

© SA LAW 2019

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them alone. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.
Read the latest Employment Views & Insights
The team at SA Law LLP has ‘excellent knowledge of employment law’. Practice head Chris Cook is recommended.
The Legal 500
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Megatrends image
Views & Insights
An SMEs guide to Digital Disruption

What does digital disruption mean and how to think disruptively.

SA Law Red Mug Coffee
Views & Insights
Building the wellbeing workplace: how to ensure your employees are healthy and happy

SA Law’s recent HR forum discussed how wellbeing in the workplace has become critical strategy for employers.

Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Proposed changes to NDA rules 'not enough to end workplace harassment'

Partner Keely Rushmore comments in People Management about the government's announcement.

Chris Cook handles the full range of employment law for both individuals and organisations. He receives particular recognition for his strong TUPE expertise.…
Chambers & Partners
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Smart Exits: Protected Conversations and Termination Payments

Chris Cook addresses the most appropriate ways of reaching a settlement when managing an employee's exit from a company.

Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Increased rights for agency and zero-hours workers

The ‘Good Work Plan’ aims to address the rights of those with atypical worker statuses, including agency workers and those on zero-hours contracts.

Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Consultation into extending redundancy protection for pregnant women and new parents

New consultation for redundancy protection while on or shortly after maternity leave or shared parental leave.

Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
A guide to flexible working & flexible working requests

Flexible working can assist employers in attracting and retaining talented candidates and staff. Our guide covers the key questions and considerations…

SA Law Red arrow neon light image
Views & Insights
Google issued with £44m fine over GDPR breach

Head of Employment and Data Protection, Chris Cook, explains Google's GDPR breach that led to landmark £44 million fine.