Legality of snooping on a logged in account?

Seeing as how he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer do you think it's possible he's been sent a dodgy activation link in an email, & with out thinking about it he's gone and activated what ever the link was & promptly wandered off & left it like that?.
 
So why would Gmail not be blocked anyway? Perhaps he was using a PC configured for communial use that didn't require a password. Maybe this is such a PC where staff are allowed to check their emails and surf the web in their breaks?
 
I would advise he speaks to a union rep, i'd hope he's in one being a carer.

They'll rip the company to shreds for not following procedures for a start. I'd also have him request the exact details of the systems, alleged websites, times, dates etc in written form, all of which he's entitled to so he can prepare a defence.
 
If it's a shared PC how can they prove he logged in to his Gmail rather than someone else having guessed his password? It all seems rather circumstantial, not least the fact that they've admitted someone else made use of his account. Should get something in writing to explain the accusation that's been raised as that will document someone else used his account which resulted in that someone raising a complaint.
 
They might have come across his Google search history through his logged in Google account. Anything that he's done at home whilst logged in will be recorded in there, although the fact that someone else has been snooping around in his logged-in account is more questionable than a home internet search history to be honest. I know which employee I'd be looking into. It certainly wouldn't be him in this instance. What he does at home is his business. Someone having questionable morals enough to look through a signed-in account isn't someone I'd want around.
 
None of this makes sense because we are not being told the whole story. Whether it's the cousin genuinely not understanding the situation or being intentionally vague as he knows he has done wrong, I don't know. But OP is not going to be able to get any usable advice until he understand what has happened and what the cousin is being accused of.
 
All seems rather suspect. If it's gross misconduct you'd surely be fired not suspended. It seems like they've jumped the gun whilst they build a case to support their accusation. If he can get details of what has led to this letter being issued to him and that confirms someone used his account and they also clarify what url's relate to their alleged contravention are then you can crosscheck the Google history as to whether these were in work time. Even if they were it doesn't prove it happened on the work PC if his phone was connected to work WiFi.

He might have a case for wrongful dismissal.
 
Last edited:
TheLegendOfMart said:
They wouldn't let him take in a family member, which they have the right not to, but took the work colleague aside just before the meeting telling the colleague he could come in but wasn't allowed to speak.
Click to expand...

That is correct - you can have a fellow member of staff in an HR meeting, but they cannot speak on your behalf - I think the idea is, that they are there to take notes for you, and so you can then have a pause during the meeting to discuss it between yourselves. I have been said silent person for workmates before, and have had a mate in as my silent partner, whilst in my own HR 'talking to'.

TheLegendOfMart said:
He came to my house to seek advice and while on the phone with the HR person she said that he had logged into his personal Gmail on the "work system" and walked away while leaving it logged in. I don't know much more about it but I assume that someone else at his work must have started snooping into his logged in account and saw that he accesses porn and torrent sites who then reported it.
Click to expand...

I am guessing that he must have access to a shared device in the office/shop floor/wherever - and unfortunately, logging into your personal email on a corporate device, is likely in breach of any IT Policy he may have signed, or agreed to indirectly, when taking employment. If he had a bunch of spam or 'genuine' emails about questionable content - then whoever discovered the emails, likely assumed he had been looking at that content on the device - and there was probably a bit of a knee-jerk reaction by folks who don't understand PCs.

I'd be looking at the IT Policy in more detail to see if he has broken any rules, as I expect that's all they'll be able to get him on really. As we all know, having a smutty email in your inbox, doesn't mean you were looking at that smut on the device; though he might have to argue this with a tribunal; so he might be best getting ACAS advice - or someone doing that on his behalf?
 
thenewoc said:
All seems rather suspect. If it's gross misconduct you'd surely be fired not suspended. It seems like they've jumped the gun whilst they build a case to support their accusation.
He might have a case for wrongful dismissal.
Click to expand...

I'm reasonably sure you can't just fire someone. You need to investigate what happened first, hence suspension. Even in something that generally looks totally one sided, like someone punched a colleague, you would suspend, investigate and then make the decision.

thenewoc said:
He might have a case for wrongful dismissal.
Click to expand...

But he's not been dismissed? This is why you suspend first, so it can be investigated, so you don't get done for wrongful dismissal.
 
AndyCr15 said:
I'm reasonably sure you can't just fire someone. You need to investigate what happened first, hence suspension. Even in something that generally looks totally one sided, like someone punched a colleague, you would suspend, investigate and then make the decision.



But he's not been dismissed? This is why you suspend first, so it can be investigated, so you don't get done for wrongful dismissal.
Click to expand...

Accept the letter apparently states:

"Gross Misconduct - Accessing illegal websites during working hours".
Click to expand...

That appears to be stating fact, 'illegal websites' (plural and were they illegal?), 'accessing' (asserting something did happen). If you weren't sure of this being the case and needed to investigate further I'm not sure you'd state it as though it were fact. If he was suspended on full pay for suspected breach of contract pending further investigation wouldn't he have his disciplinary hearing post investigation? It sounded as though he's had a disciplinary that he took a colleague in with him for but maybe this was just for his suspension? Whether it constitutes 'Gross Misconduct' is also somewhat of a gray area as I think the employer would need to demonstrate how said action caused a tangible loss to the business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom