Many organisations have statements very similar to the one below BUT they
limit its context just to electronic records and/or electronic mail.
Although the all-inclusive statement below is very robust, I can personally
see no problem with it. Many contracts of employment have similar clauses in
them, though aren't perhaps so obviously referring to "records".... they
often deal more generally with "property", "information" or "intellectual
property".
At the end of the day, employees are paid to carry out the business of their
employer and should not consider any of their actions as being private.
Sounds harsh, but those are the facts. In reality, I'm sure most employers
would not force employees to leave behind personal calenders, magazines and
other items that are obviously personal in nature. It is helpful though to
have a robust policy in the event of disputes or other difficulty.
Regards,
Eldin.
Rammell Consulting
Organisational Effectiveness through
Records & Information Management
Mobile: 07940 859721
Tel: 01304 381691
Fax: 0871 661 0507
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.rammell.com
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gerry Dane
Sent: 02 September 2004 15:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RM Policy - HE Sector
Dear all,
I intend putting the following into a University policy document:
'University Records belong to the University.
All records, created or received by University staff in the course of
their employment, are the property of the University and subject to its
control. In this context, there can be no such thing as a private
record; employees leaving the University or changing positions within it
are required to leave all records for their successors.'
My view is that the clause is sound in itself and that any statement
relating to the ownership of records needs to be robust. However a
feared reaction from researchers is causing some to think twice -
mistakenly in my opinion, I can't see how the issue of records ownership
can be fudged at all.
Are there any differing views? Has anyone had to address the same issue.
Any opinion welcome.
Best,
Gerry.
Mr.G.Dane
University of Newcastle
Email: [log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------
The views expressed in this message are those of the
sender and not necessarily those of the University.
|