The internet - do you or don't you?

This is the second part of our series on employees and the internet. 

The first understanding that employees must have is that upon entering the employer’s premises, the employee immediately comes under the control and direction of the employer.

The employee is no longer In a position to do as he/she pleases, and one consequence of this is that the employee does not have an exclusive “right to privacy”, and especially in terms of using the employer’s resources and equipment.

The employee enters the premises in terms of a contractual arrangement, and then only with the permission of the employer.

The employee is then expected to embark on executing his agreed duties in terms of any contractual arrangement and applicable job description, whether written or verbal.

I do not know of any employer who grants permission to his employees to enter his premises and attend to their private affairs using the employer’ resources.

Prevention is always better than cure. It is acknowledged that some preventive measures do not always have the desired effect, but nonetheless preventive measures to have great value.

The wise employer will make it a condition of employment, embodied in the employment contract (as opposed to just a normal company rule or regulation in the employee handbook) that private use of the company electronic communications facilities, including the internet, e-mail, fax and telephone, is prohibited. It should be further stated in the employment contract that should the employee breach this clause, disciplinary action will follow which may lead to dismissal.

It is far more effective to prohibit private use altogether, rather than to have a regulation permitting private use under certain conditions.

Those certain conditions will, in the event of disciplinary action, give rise to argument about whether the employee’s breach does in fact constitute a breach of that  condition.

Much argument will ensue on the interpretation of the rule – the employee will argue that his interpretation was “this and this and this”  and the employer will argue that the meaning is “that and that and that.”

The employer will argue “if the employee was in doubt, why didn’t he ask??”  and the employee will argue that he was not in doubt, he genuinely was convinced that his interpretation was correct – an on and on it goes.

So why put in place a rule that is only going to cause problems and be challenged when it comes under the spotlight ?

Make a hard and fast rule that nobody can misunderstand and that does not lend itself to possible mis-interpretation.

Private use is prohibited – end of story.

Some may argue that this is harsh. Others may argue that such a rule is impossible to implement, and that employees will use the facilities – and particularly the e-mail, for private use.

We know that – employees break the rules with alarming regularity. This we know.

But if the employer wishes to ensure that his employees are being productive, are not wasting time valuable company time that the employee is being paid for, that employees  are complying with terms and conditions of employment, then the employer must have rules and regulations in place, and he must embody prohibitive clauses in the employment contact, and above all, he must monitor the staff usage of the equipment and resources that are provided for business purposes.

The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act, 2002, does in fact grant permission to certain persons to intercept indirect communications under certain circumstances.

We shall delve deeper into that next week.

The South African Labour Guide is a private company and has no association with the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), you may find the CCMA on www.ccma.org.za