Dear meegpage-ga;
Thank you for allowing me to answer your interesting question.
According to law firm Venable, LLP the issue is officially governed in
this manner:
?Federal law prohibits an employer, or anyone else, from taking mail
addressed to another before it has been delivered to the addressee,
"with design to obstruct the correspondence, or pry into the business
or secrets of another." 18 U.S.C. § 1702. Violations carry penalties
of fines up to $2,000, imprisonment up to five years, or both. Id.?
VENABLE LLP
http://www.venable.com/publication.cfm?publication_type_ID=2&publication_ID=535
Clearly 18 U.S.C. § 1702, mentioned above, makes no distinction
whatsoever regarding whether or not the package (etc.) is delivered by
an agent of the US Postal Service or by a private contract carrier.
Here is how the actual statute is worded verbatim:
?Sec. 1702. - Obstruction of correspondence
Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post
office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any
letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or
authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail
carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was
directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into
the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or
destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than five years, or both?
18 U.S.C. § 1702
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode18&STEMMER=en&WORDS=1702+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/18/1702.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match
At WORKINDEX.COM your question has also been discussed. In contrast to
the Federal statue mentioned above however it appears that a real-life
scenario is quite different than the cut-and-dried law suggests; that
being that an employer?s authority to open a package addressed to his
employee depends (among other things perhaps) on the expectations of
the employee, the balance of interests, and whether or not an
INTENTIONAL invasion of privacy or obstruction of delivery occurred:
?The issue of whether this is lawful depends upon various facts.
Courts have generally recognized that opening an employee's mail that
is clearly marked "personal" constitutes an invasion of privacy by the
employer under state law.
Assessing whether there has been a privacy violation in those
circumstances where mail is less clearly identified requires balancing
the employee's expectation of privacy in the workplace against the
employer's interest in monitoring and protecting its workforce. How
these competing interests will be applied is a fact-specific inquiry
and varies among the states.?
?In sum, the issue of whether an employer may open mail addressed to
its employees depends, in large part, on the particular facts of each
case. While courts have held that opening an employee's mailed that is
marked "personal" violates the employee's privacy, there are no set
rules that can be applied to other factual scenarios.
Instead, courts have typically conducted a balancing of the interests
at stake when deciding whether there has been an invasion of privacy.
As always, it is best to consult with local counsel, especially with
regard to state law issues, as to what circumstances give rise to an
invasion of privacy.?
WORKINDEX.COM ? LEGAL CLINIC
http://www.workindex.com/editorial/legal/legalarc-0405-04.asp
Having said that, such a complaint would be one to be weighed by a
court of law only on an individual, case-by-case instance according to
the details of the matter being decided. In terms of case law and
legal precedent one might refer to Vernars v. Young, 539 F.2d 966, 969
(3d Cir. 1976) where the court recognized an ?intrusion upon
seclusion? holding that invasion of privacy occurred when mail
addressed to the plaintiff was opened by the defendant without the
plaintiff's consent. It should be noted that this was 1976, well
before the advent of email, and that Vernars v. Young was related to
the opening of correspondence (as in the case you described) rather
than electronic mail. Furthermore, this case is NOT related to issues
involving the opening, tampering or obstruction of US Postal mail (or
mail originating from any particular source for that matter) rather it
revolves around whether or not Vernar?s right to privacy was violated,
period:
?Most states allow a citizen to bring an action in tort for breach of
right to privacy. For example, in Vernars v. Young, 539 F.2d 966 (3rd
Cir. 1976) the Court held that an employee whose personal mail had
been opened and read by a fellow corporate officer had stated a cause
of action for invasion of his privacy rights.?
LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVING PRIVACY AND JURISDICTION IN CYBERSPACE
http://www.nacua.org/nonsearched/outline/vii-97-09-1.pdf
In summary, while a Michigan court (or any other court) would weigh a
complaint like this on it?s merit and decide each one on a
case-by-case basis according to the criteria I mentioned above, the
legal precedent is INDEED and decidedly set in favor those whose mail
was opened as opposed to those who open it regardless of each person?s
position with the company. I reiterate, through this source:
?In Vernars v. Young, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals stated that
private individuals, in their place of work, "have a reasonable
expectation that their personal mail will not be opened and read by
unauthorized persons."
BUILDING A COMMUNITY THROUGH WORKPLACE E-MAIL: THE NEW PRIVACY FRONTIER
http://www.mttlr.org/volfive/schnaitman_art.html#fnref214
The issue in the end would ultimately boil down to who is ?authorized?
and who is not and this is undoubtedly the very matter that requires
these cases to be weighed on a case-by-case basis.
Can I give you a yes or no answer to your question?
- No, and no one can. Even attorneys (such as Venable, LLC mentioned
above) say that only a court can decide based on the facts of these
cases if anyone overstepped their authority where this is concerned.
There is no set standard or Michigan State statute that regulates or
governs this topic, specifically in relation to employee mail and
packages other than the Federal law (which may or may not be relative
in some instances).
Is it wise to open an employee?s mail without their consent using the
argument that it is YOUR place of business, YOUR mailing address and
YOU make the rules?
- Probably not. As seen above this doesn?t appear to be much of a
defense, but in real-life terms, if the matter isn?t a problem with
the employee (i.e. you have their consent) then no problem exists and
there is likely nothing to be concerned about.
Can you insist upon opening ALL incoming packages and letters no
matter how they are addressed and force your employees to go along
with it whether they like it or not, just because you are the boss?
- Uh, that?s a REALLY bad plan in my opinion.
What would be an amicable solution then?
It would seem that your best bet is probably to provide mailboxes for
each employee so mail could be properly sorted by a delivery person or
other company designated person or to obtain written consent from each
employee granting a company designate to open all incoming parcels not
otherwise marked as ?personal?.
I appreciate your notice and understanding that we cannot provide
legal advice. With that in mind I should also mention that we normally
do not act as ?moral police? either, but since you asked about the
ethical issues involved in the matter of opening employee mail I will
offer my opinion:
Personally, I think if an employer knows or reasonably suspects that
his employees are not happy with his practice of opening their
packages (with or without their knowledge), whether it is legal or not
it is unethical. ? But that?s just my opinion.
I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. If you
have any questions about my research please post a clarification
request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating
and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again
in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher
INFORMATION SOURCES
DEFINED ABOVE
SEARCH STRATEGY
SEARCH ENGINE USED:
Google ://www.google.com
SEARCH TERMS USED:
MICHIGAN
LAW
STATUTE
FEDERAL
STATE
MAIL
PACKAGES
DELIVERY
?ADDRESSED TO AN EMPLOYEE?
?ADDRESSED TO EMPLOYEES?
PRIVACY |
,
1 Comment
)