Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Craig Jackson drilex1 Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying Message-ID: <11880@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 7 Sep 90 18:16:33 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA Lines: 27 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 628, Message 10 of 14 In article <11759@accuvax.nwu.edu> annala%neuro.usc.edu@usc.edu (A J Annala) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 622, Message 6 of 12 >The right of employee privacy in telephone conversations on employer >owned equipment was settled a few years ago in a suit brought against >one of the major air carriers. My recollection is vague, but I seem >to remember an air carrier tried to dismiss a reservations employee >for some kind of union organizing activity. The dismissal was based >on surrepticious monitoring of an employee telephone conversation. >The court ordered the employee reinstated ... with probable damages. It would be difficult to draw a general principle from such a ruling. Union-oriented activity has become specially enshrined in American jurisprudence. I wouldn't be surprised if union organizing was held to be a legitimate business activity of any employee. If the employee was doing something more obviously personal, such as using the telephone to run a business on the side, it might not relate to this decision. Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}