Privacy Policy

A privacy policy is crucial to any business. Employees need to know that there is no privacy in their workplace when it comes to phone calls, emails, voicemails as well as their computers and the sites they visit during work hours. The policy must advise the employees that their employer has the right to monitor all of the above. In addition, the policy should also inform the employees that their employer has the right to search their desk, office, etc as long as there is reasonable cause to do so related to their job. Private companies can require random drug testing and all employees must comply. Public employers can only require drug testing if there is reasonable suspicion.

Employers must confidentially regarding each employee's employment file particularly their personal information as there is an expectation of privacy by the employee. It should be included in this policy an statement advising any employee with access to these records that confidentiality is imperative and any leak of this information is grounds for immediate termination! No second chances , no warnings!

Employees should be advised that the company is allowed to use surveillance in the workplace if it is needed to ensure workplace and product safety.

A good privacy policy should list the types of offensive behaviors that are forbidden and the fact that any reported behaviors will be investigated. The policy should list how the investigation will take place and include the consequences of the outcome of the investigation. ss

Privacy Policy

If I were drafting a privacy policy for a company, the policy would alert employees to the limits of their privacy rights in the workplace. The policy would state that the employer has the right to listen to phone calls, monitor employee’s conversations, obtain records of phone calls and voice mail and also look at the contents of their computer usage. In the workplace employees have few rights, but if an employee is to be investigated, employees should be informed when they are the subject of monitoring or surveillance. Employees do have the right to privacy and an employer should not use surveillance devises in areas that are regarded as private (locker rooms, bathrooms, etc.). DB

Kidd v Illinois State Police

In the case of Kidd v Illinois State Police, a police department terminated a black male before the completion of his training program. The terminated employee claimed race discrimination due to the fact that the police allowed a white employee to continue with the training program and receive six months of special training
In this case, the court should decide in favor of the employer. Even though Kidd had a learning disability and a training program was being devised, he would not have been able to correct his deficiencies in time to successfully complete his probationary period. DB

"general duty clause"

OSHA's general duty clause places responsibility for workplace safety with employers. The clause can also be used for enforcement purposes in the absence of standards regulating specific hazards involved.
Training employees on equipment and supplying protective gear is important but will not do anything to make unsafe conditions safer. It's in the employer's best interest to have safety policies in place which focus on preventing, eliminating and reducing hazards. These safety rules should be clear, specific and consistent with one another and should be consistently enforced.
If an employer is found to have violated the general duty clause, fines and citations can be issued; not only that, but in cases of workplace injury or illness, the employer will need to deal with workers' compensation cases along with any negative publicity the violation will bring. DB

Wal-Mart v NLRB

The case of Wal-Mart v NLRB is a sticky situation. There are two issues that need to be addressed.

The first is that Wal-Mart removed an off duty employee from the store because he was soliciting for a Union with a tee-shirt that read “Union Teamsters” ‘Sign a card…Ask me how!” Since he was off duty, he was clearly within his rights to wear this tee shirt into the store.

The other issue is that the next day the same employee had conversation with two other employees during work hours about attending a union meeting and signing a union authorization card. This is clearly a violation of the store’s non solicitation policy. Wal-Mart was within its rights to counsel this employee

It seems that the NLRB has two decisions to make. The first should be in favor of the employee, due to the fact he was off duty, and the second decision should be in favor of Wal-Mart. They were well within their rights to counsel the employee because the conversation was during work hours and not during a break. DB

Wal-Mart vs. NLRB

When I first read this case, I saw an easy decision. Wal-Mart was clearly wrong to kick this employee out of the store because he was wearing a t-shirt advertising unions. NLRB regulations allow employees to wear unon buttons, insignas, etc. , and the t-shirts should have been allowed based on this regulation.

However, the other situations are questionable. If the employee was on the clock when inviting collegues to the union meeting or when asking them to sign the union authorization cards, Wal-Mart is correct. However, if he was on a break or not working, he had the right to do what he did.

Based on the facts I have in the case, I believe that the board must find in favor of the employee/union. Wal-Mart violated this employee's rights by the "coaching session" informing that Wal-Mart was against unions and by trying to prohibit him for sharing information with collegues. Under the NLRB, employers are not allowed to interfere as Wal-Mart did! Once again, Wal-Mart is unfair to their workers. ss

Deguise vs. Sprint

In the case of Deguise vs. Sprint regarding COBRA notification, I see see arguements for both sides.

The court could rule in favor of Sprint because they made an attempt to contact Mr. Deguise by certified mail. The company can't be at fault because the post office could not find the letter when Mr. Deguise went to pick it up. Shouldn't someone from the company have called Mr. Deguise to make should they had the correct address and inform him of the contents of the letter? I do realize the the employee is responsible for notifying the employer of any change in address, but wonder if a follow-up phone call would have been in order.

At the same time, Mr. Deguise did not sign any documents declining his COBRA benefits since he never received the notification so he can't be faulted either. He claims he was unaware that the lost letter was from his former employer. If he had known the letter was from them, perhaps he would have contacted them to find out what was in the letter. Then again, we'll never know whether or not he would have opened or responded to the letter if he had received it.

I believe the court must find in favor of Sprint as they fulfilled their obligation by sending Mr. Deguise the documents. This situation could have been avoided if HR had given him these papers before he left the office on his last day of work!

One final thought.... I read an interesting comment online regarding this case: If Sprint had sent the letter by regular mail, Mr. Deguise would have received it. While this may be true, it still doesn't mean that Mr. Deguise would have responded before he was notified that his insurance claim had been denied. ss

COBRA NOTIFICATION

When COBRA notices are sent to those entitled for the benefits, a company only needs to show that it made a good faith effort when sending the notification. In the case of Degruise v. Sprint Corp, the company could prove that they made a good faith effort when they mailed the notification through certified mail. Even though the letter was returned to the employer because it was undeliverable, and was not mailed a second time, the company met its obligation. The court should rule in favor of Sprint Corp. DB