{"id":227779,"date":"2018-03-03T07:00:54","date_gmt":"2018-03-03T05:00:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/?p=227779"},"modified":"2018-03-02T17:26:26","modified_gmt":"2018-03-02T15:26:26","slug":"heres-when-your-boss-is-allowed-to-read-your-personal-emails-in-south-africa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/technology\/227779\/heres-when-your-boss-is-allowed-to-read-your-personal-emails-in-south-africa\/","title":{"rendered":"Here’s when your boss is allowed to read your personal emails in South Africa"},"content":{"rendered":"

While it has long been understood that your company is allowed to monitor your work emails, there are also a number of considerations when sending emails from your personal inbox.<\/p>\n

This is\u00a0according to law firm Abrahams and Gross<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>which highlights that the RICA Act currently regulates an employer\u2019s right to intercept or monitor the communications of employees in the working environment.<\/p>\n

“In the recent unreported case of ‘Smith and Partners in Sexual Health (Non-Profit)’<\/em>\u00a0the CEO of a company accidentally gained access to one of her employee\u2019s email accounts, mistakenly believing it to be the company\u2019s account,” explained Abrahams and Gross’ Jeremy Simon and Wesley Scheepers.<\/p>\n

“In the emails, the employee complained about her job and her employer and informed others about the goings on at the company itself. The employee was dismissed and took her case to the CCMA where it was held that she was unfairly dismissed.<\/p>\n

“The court in this case did not rely on RICA and instead placed more weight on who owned the Gmail account. The Court concluded that the CEO had no right to read the employee’s emails since it was her personal account (on the employer\u2019s computer),” Scheepers said.<\/p>\n

Exceptions<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, the court\u00a0should have taken into account the several exceptions contained in RICA in coming to its decision, the legal experts pointed out.<\/p>\n

An employer may rely on these exceptions to justify any monitoring or interception of an employee\u2019s communications, the legal firm said.<\/p>\n

“An interception, according to RICA, may be \u2018authorised\u2019 in various ways, including: if the employer is a party to the communication<\/strong> or if the monitored party has provided written consent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

“In addition, RICA provides that the employer will be justified if he or she will be able to prove the communication was intercepted in the course of the carrying on of any business<\/strong>; if that communication relates to that business<\/strong>, or which otherwise takes place in the course of the carrying on of that business<\/strong>,” Scheepers said.<\/p>\n

Importantly, the interception must be effected by, or with the express or implied consent of the system controller:<\/p>\n