Paul
Thanks for comment
Re 1: I was raising observation in a generic form and not just in the
context of the example. Re the HRA the operative question is 'his
correspondence' If applying to emails does the term 'his correspondence'
imply the email owner is the author as employee
not the employer?
Re 2 Point taken re the potential for continued dispute re the level of
court decision made in. Do you have the case name? Re the UTC Contract
Regulations 1999 one of your observations being why does the OIC need the
powers afforded to the Qulaifying bodies give he has the principles. Isn't
this due to the fact that a failure to follow a principle is not a proven
DPA breach until an enforcement notice served and not followed. An
enforcement can also be challenged by a controller if they so choose
delaying enforcement. Is there such a challenge possible if the powers of a
Qualifying body is exercised under UCTR 1999?
Views
David Wyatt.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hubert, Paul [STU]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [data-protection] Employee Emails
> Two observations on David's list:
>
> 1) The employer is not a public authority for these purposes, but a
tribunal
> or court in considering any dispute will have to have regard to Article 8
of
> the Human Rights Act (Art 8.1 "Everyone is entitled to respect for his ...
> correspondence") in interpreting the applicable law.
>
> 2) >Im advised by in-house lawyer that Employment contracts are Consumer
> contracts. Therefore the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act would
apply.
>
> I think this is almost certainly mistaken (he said boldly). Although the
> possibility is being explored by some employment lawyers, it is not clear
> whether the single case which found that it did was correctly decided -
the
> employee lost so the employer did not take the principle to the Court of
> Appeal or House of Lords. There might also be a distinction between the
> position in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in
> Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. I don't really see why the IC needs
> this legislation to challenge terms or policies "which would be in Breach
of
> DPA principles" anyway - if there's a clear breach of the DPA, why go
> chasing after a tenuous argument based on UCTA?
> Paul
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
> available to the world wide web community at large at
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
> All user commands can be found at : -
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
> (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
