Finance Worker Awarded £8,000 in Constructive Dismissal Case Over Privacy Breach
A finance worker who resigned after her employer accessed and scrutinised her private WhatsApp messages, including discussions about fantasy audiobooks, has been awarded £8,009 in compensation by an employment tribunal. The tribunal found that Kirsty Coleman was a victim of constructive dismissal and that her right to privacy had been seriously violated by her bosses at Thermoelectric Conversion Systems, a research and development company based in Clydebank.
Discovery of Personal Messages Leads to Disciplinary Action
Ms Coleman joined the company as a finance administrator in September 2022. As part of her role, she was required to install her personal WhatsApp account on her work computer to facilitate communication with colleagues. In May 2023, the managing director, Dr Jonathan Siviter, accessed her laptop to locate a work-related spreadsheet but instead encountered several personal WhatsApp exchanges.
Dr Siviter proceeded to scroll through approximately thirty pages of messages, which included private conversations between Ms Coleman and a colleague. One exchange referenced an audiobook, with Ms Coleman describing it as "steamy" and her colleague humorously responding, "haha oh ur big dragon porn." Another message, sent outside working hours from a personal device, expressed frustration toward a colleague named Kyle, stating, "I swear to f***ing god, I am going to slam Kyle's face against his desk if he keeps it up." This comment was made after Kyle repeatedly slammed a door in the office, causing windows to shake.
Company's Interpretation and Disciplinary Proceedings
Dr Siviter deemed these messages to be "defamatory and threatening," as well as "pornographic," and reported them to the company's finance director. The company subsequently initiated disciplinary proceedings, alleging gross misconduct for inappropriate use of company equipment and accessing pornographic content. They also interpreted the message about Kyle as a genuine threat, citing Ms Coleman's background as a trained military cadet instructor.
In June 2023, Ms Coleman was suspended and received screenshots of her WhatsApp conversations as evidence of the misconduct allegations. She requested clarification but felt the company had already predetermined her dismissal. When her union representative was barred from attending the disciplinary meeting, Ms Coleman resigned, believing she would not receive a fair hearing.
Tribunal's Ruling on Privacy and Context
Employment Judge David Hoey ruled that Ms Coleman had been constructively dismissed. He emphasised that Dr Siviter's actions in trawling through personal messages irreparably damaged the trust and confidence between Ms Coleman and the company, constituting a breach of her reasonable right to privacy. Judge Hoey stated, "The managing director had a legitimate purpose in looking for work-related material, but that was not a justification for his decision to read obviously personal messages."
The judge further criticised the company's interpretation of the messages, noting a failure to consider context. He found no evidence that the audiobook was pornographic, describing it as a science fiction story, and deemed the comment about Kyle an expression of anger rather than a credible threat. Judge Hoey concluded, "There was no fair basis to make that assertion, given the obvious context and fact that she was listening to a book."
Compensation and Implications for Workplace Privacy
Ms Coleman was awarded a total of £8,009 in compensation for unfair dismissal and the privacy breach. This case highlights significant issues regarding employee privacy rights in the digital age, particularly when personal communication tools are used on work devices. It underscores the importance of employers respecting boundaries and conducting fair investigations, avoiding overreach into private matters without legitimate justification.
The ruling serves as a reminder to companies to implement clear policies on digital communication and privacy, ensuring that disciplinary actions are based on substantiated evidence and proper context, rather than unfounded assumptions.
