To re-join this issue, I thought an employee was legally entitled to
communicate with his Trade Union representative (obviously personal e-mail)
especially as the employer knew there was an existing grievance and the
e-mail subject was headed "Grievance".  
Another point although the employer has introduced an e-mail policy - the
majority of people have not signed an existing contract as there were parts
to which no one wanted to sign up to (there is no mention of an e-mail
policy) in the contract - I thought everyone had to sign up to it but please
correct me if I am wrong.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian Welton [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:	03 November 2000 22:16
> To:	[log in to unmask]
> Subject:	Re: Interception of e-mails
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Pistols down.  Magnifying glasses, dictionaries and interpreters out.
> 
> Agree that the employer can access their e-mail system to check for, and
> detect, misuse.  A necessary protection for the employer.
> 
> The point I am making is that there may be occasions where 'in confidence'
> or 'privileged' communications exist between the employee and 'ANBody'
> which
> falls within the employers legitimate use of the system.
> 
> It would appear contradictory if access to that material were suddenly
> legalised and no mechanism existed to protect it.
> 
> 
> Ian W
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 2:18 PM
> Subject: RE: Interception of e-mails
> 
> 
> > Well its pistols at dawn time.
> >
> > Can I assume that the employer has properly instructed its staff and can
> I
> > assume that our disagreement relates to the fact that the e-mail
> contains
> > Sensitive Personal Data (i.e. if there is no Sensitive Personal Data and
> the
> > processing can be legimised in terms of para 6 of Sechedule 2)
> >
> > So start from the propoistion that anybody knowingly misusing e-mail
> > facilities is running the risk of a S.55 offence.
> >
> > If that is the case, then the employer claims that the first para of the
> SI
> > 2000, No 417 could apply; and if e-mail is intimidatory then para 3 of
> > Schedule 3.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: 27 October 2000 21:23
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Cc: Pounder Chris
> > Subject: Re: Interception of e-mails
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > Disagree.  How do you justify the 'processing' of the 'sensitive
> personal
> > data' contained in the 'personal' e.mail, by the employer under the
> > Schedules?
> >
> > It would presumably be possible under Schedule 2 with the legitimate
> > interests of the data controller.
> >
> > I would seem to be possible under Schedule 3 by elements of paragraph 4.
> >
> > However, what about the common law of confidence issues and what if the
> > e.mail consists of legal advice from a solicitor to a client, privileged
> > material in that sense?
> >
> > How are the Human Rights Act elements incorporated and dealt with?
> >
> > How are the law of confidence issues dealt with?
> >
> > The normal social codes of conduct must apply in some way.  Even though
> the
> > technology is new the people are the same.
> >
> > ps. Sorry to have re-entered such a stimulating debate at this late
> stage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian W
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>;
> > <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 12:16 PM
> > Subject: RE: Interception of e-mails
> >
> >
> > > Sorry to intercept all these communications on this, but I think the
> > answer
> > > is this:
> > >
> > > 1. The interception regulations make it lawful to intercept e-mails at
> > work
> > > irrespective of the contents of the communication so long as the
> purpose
> > of
> > > the interception is that as secified in the regulations
> > >
> > > 2. The First Principle requires that personal data are processed (i.e.
> > > intercepted) lawfully and fairly
> > >
> > > 3. Fair processing requirements must result in employees being
> informed
> > > UNLESS an exemption from the First Principle applies.
> > >
> > > As far as I can see it, the Regulations and the Code of P. are not at
> odds
> > as
> > > the former is primarily dealing with lawfulness and the latter is
> dealing
> > > with fairness.
> > >
> > > If there is a conflict with the interpretation of "lawful processing"
> then
> > > the Regulations will prevail - and to be fair to the Commissioner, the
> > Code
> > > was probably drafted before the nature of the Regulations were
> finalised
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > ******************** E-mail confidentiality notice
> ********************
> > >
> > > This message is intended for the addressee only.  It is private,
> > > confidential and may be covered by legal professional privilege or
> > > other legal or attorney/client privilege. If you have received this
> > > message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.
> > >
> > > If you require assistance, please contact our London office
> > > (telephone +44 (0) 20 7490 4000).
> > >
> > > Masons is an international law firm with offices in London, Bristol,
> > > Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Brussels, Dublin, Hong Kong,
> > > Guangzhou and Singapore.
> > >
> > > Further information about the firm and a list of partners is
> > > available for inspection at 30 Aylesbury Street, London EC1R OER
> > > or from our Web site at www.masons.com
> > >
> > >
> ***********************************************************************
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ******************** E-mail confidentiality notice ********************
> >
> > This message is intended for the addressee only.  It is private,
> > confidential and may be covered by legal professional privilege or
> > other legal or attorney/client privilege. If you have received this
> > message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.
> >
> > If you require assistance, please contact our London office
> > (telephone +44 (0) 20 7490 4000).
> >
> > Masons is an international law firm with offices in London, Bristol,
> > Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Brussels, Dublin, Hong Kong,
> > Guangzhou and Singapore.
> >
> > Further information about the firm and a list of partners is
> > available for inspection at 30 Aylesbury Street, London EC1R OER
> > or from our Web site at www.masons.com
> >
> > ***********************************************************************
> >
> 
________________________________________________________________

This e-mail is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright.
Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its contents is prohibited.
The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily
be the views held by the Scottish Borders Council.
_________________________________________________________________



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%