Legality of snooping on a logged in account?

Scort · 26 Jun 2019 at 11:48

TheLegendOfMart said:
Yes they logged into his Gmail to access the password reset link.

I don't know HOW they got it but they have. They wont share.

If the Senior did it via Chrome, it would have likely liked his Gmail account as a User, within the Browser - and by default, it'll happily sync everything he has done within Chrome at home - though I think the end user will be prompted for this to happen; and if they are all illiterate then it would have been your usual blind click the "Yes" button.

TheLegendOfMart · 26 Jun 2019 at 11:49

I know about ACAS, he's been there under two years and they have policies about internet usage there is nothing he can do. I just wondered if there was another angle about accessing all of his information without consent.

Scort · 26 Jun 2019 at 12:00

TheLegendOfMart said:
I know about ACAS, he's been there under two years and they have policies about internet usage there is nothing he can do. I just wondered if there was another angle about accessing all of his information without consent.

One would assume that he has passed any probation - so he should have just as many rights, as someone who has been there 10 years.

The key now, is to get hold of his 'employee handbook', or whatever document covers the company's disciplinary procedure - the policy on IT use will also be handy.

When ACAS helped me, I had a very serious (job threatening) procedure completely quashed, as my employer had not adhered to their own processes - it was brilliant, as I went from complete misery (and the prospect of losing my job), to serenity

The whole angle on accessing his personal info without consent, will be a huge gray area, as it was a corporate laptop - their property, and subject to their rules. Sure there is an argument about the trawling through the entirety of his data that was synced, which is all kinds of wrong, but they will still hold a get out of jail card (of sorts) - in that it is a corporate device and there are IT policies governing its usage.

Edit: I'm not trying to say that they have every right to do what they did, as it was their bit of kit - just be prepared for that to be a counter argument, and their justification for doing it. Here, on our corporate kit, we would never dream of snooping like that.

MikeTheNative · 26 Jun 2019 at 12:18

TheLegendOfMart said:
Basically one time while out caring for a 'service user' (basically the disabled person). My 2nd cousin (the guy who is about to get sacked) couldn't reset his Facebook password on his phone so his 'senior' (more experienced carer) offered to reset it via the seniors work laptop. The senior logged into my 2nd cousins account to access the password reset link and in doing so it somehow sent all of the emails and web browsing history that my 2nd cousin accesses at home.

Some time later someone has made an allegation about his internet usage and the company he works for have found that all of his history was in their logs. HR went through the hundreds of pages hes ever been on going back years and found torrent sites and porn sites. They then suspended him pending an investigation into his internet usage. They are computer illiterate it seems and they think he is doing that at work on their laptop despite him not having access to a work laptop, only seniors have it.

The company have 'electronic communication and web usage' policies about accessing websites at work like social media,etc... let alone going on illegal websites and porn. So now they are gearing up to get rid of him because they think he is doing it while at work.

Seems to be like making a mountain out of a mole hill to me. I understand the both of them getting a slap on the wrists for using the work laptops for personal stuff, but can't the other guy just explain what has happened and that he wasn't actually surfing these websites on the work laptop ?

TheLegendOfMart · 26 Jun 2019 at 13:01

I suspect the guy is fearful for his job. I doubt he would want to drop himself in it. I wouldn't be surprised if he lied and said my cousin used it without the senior knowing.

thenewoc · 26 Jun 2019 at 15:28

I guess it will boil down to whether the company can prove it counts as 'gross misconduct'. Even though he may have done something in breach of a policy if it didn't result in any material loss to the company I would argue it's not 'gross misconduct', misconduct yes but that would be an official warning and would only result in dismissal if the individual was already at the max amount of allowed warnings.

AndyCr15 · 26 Jun 2019 at 18:08

thenewoc said:
I guess it will boil down to whether the company can prove it counts as 'gross misconduct'. Even though he may have done something in breach of a policy if it didn't result in any material loss to the company I would argue it's not 'gross misconduct'

That's not my understanding of Groos Misconduct, but then I thought I don't really know exactly what it means. A Google gave me this result -

Gross misconduct is an act which is so serious that it justifies dismissal without notice, or pay in lieu of notice, for a first offence. They must be acts that destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and employee, making the working relationship impossible to continue.Gross misconduct is an act which is so serious that it justifies dismissal without notice, or pay in lieu of notice, for a first offence. They must be acts that destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and employee, making the working relationship impossible to continue.

I would say if they think he's surfed these sites while at work, it would fit that description.

Delvis · 26 Jun 2019 at 18:12

TheLegendOfMart said:
I suspect the guy is fearful for his job. I doubt he would want to drop himself in it. I wouldn't be surprised if he lied and said my cousin used it without the senior knowing.

In that case why did he provide your cousin with the log into details to the laptop / why didn't the senior lock his laptop as per laptop procedure?

Energize · 26 Jun 2019 at 18:30

Scort said:
One would assume that he has passed any probation - so he should have just as many rights, as someone who has been there 10 years.

Passing probation does not give someone the same rights as someone who has been there 10 years, legal protection against unfair dismissal etc only applies after 2 years of service, up to that point they can fire him without reason. Passing probation usually gives a longer contractual notice period and certain benefits but that's about it and depends on the individual contract.

thenewoc · 26 Jun 2019 at 19:06

AndyCr15 said:
That's not my understanding of Groos Misconduct, but then I thought I don't really know exactly what it means. A Google gave me this result -

I would say if they think he's surfed these sites while at work, it would fit that description.

I think it's a bit of a grey area and not entirely up to the company to decide which is why I think they'd have to show they've suffered material loss, either lost revenue or reputation or something so severe that it demonstrated a loss of trust for the employee to do their job. I'm not sure breaking an IT policy would constitute that at an employment tribunal.

TheLegendOfMart · 26 Jun 2019 at 19:11

So he got fired for multiple counts of breaking their policy of using his phone and going on the internet while at work. It had nothing to do with what kind of internet sites he was going on.

He didn't say he had a meeting so I guess that's that then.

thenewoc · 26 Jun 2019 at 19:16

TheLegendOfMart said:
So he got fired for multiple counts of breaking their policy of using his phone and going on the internet while at work. It had nothing to do with what kind of internet sites he was going on.

He didn't say he had a meeting so I guess that's that then.

Oh well I'm guessing he was probably on minimum wage as a carer anyway so shouldn't have too much trouble finding something else on minimum wage. Seems a crab employer anyway not to allow someone to use their phone at work.

TheLegendOfMart · 26 Jun 2019 at 19:18

I mean I can understand their policy. If you are looking at social media on your phone you aren't caring and if the disabled person gets hurt then they are liable.

AndyCr15 · 26 Jun 2019 at 20:08

thenewoc said:
I think it's a bit of a grey area and not entirely up to the company to decide which is why I think they'd have to show they've suffered material loss, either lost revenue or reputation or something so severe that it demonstrated a loss of trust for the employee to do their job. I'm not sure breaking an IT policy would constitute that at an employment tribunal.

My belief, from my experience with a company that wouldn't take risks in closing a contract, is it's nothing to do with financial loss or reputation loss (although both of these can be reasons of course).

Another search, the second result this time -

Gross misconduct is behaviour, on the part of an employee, which is so bad that it destroys the employer/employee relationship, and merits instant dismissal without notice or pay in lieu of notice.

The third result -

Gross misconduct covers a long list of offences that staff members could commit at work. This behaviour is unprofessional and unethical, falling short of regular standards in the typical workplace.

Conduct this severe destroys the relationship between employer and employee and warrants instant dismissal (also known as ‘summary dismissal’)—without notice and without pay in lieu of notice (PILON).

The fourth -

There is no strict legal definition of gross misconduct. But the Government defines gross misconductas "theft, physical violence, gross negligence, or serious insubordination".

But it can also refer to any act that destroys the employer-employee relationship.