Today
it is so easy for an employer or employee to record a conversation, using a
cellphone.
Must the other party consent to such recording, before it can be
used for or against him or her in a court of law, disciplinary enquiry, etc.?
In summary:
·
Section 14 of our Constitution provides that
everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have the privacy of
their communications infringed.
·
An employer is entitled to breach the privacy or secrecy of an
employee if it can prove that the employee gave his or her consent or that the breach
was justified by necessity or in the interests of justice to do
so.
·
It is not illegal for a person to
record or intercept conversations that they are party to. Section 4 of the
Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of
Communication-Related Information Act, 2002 (“RICA”) provides that any
person, other than a law enforcement officer, may intercept any communication
if he or she is a party to the communication, unless such communication is
intercepted by such person for purposes of committing an offence.
·
Section 35(5) of the Constitution
of South Africa provides that evidence obtained in a manner that violates any
right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence
renders the trial unfair or will otherwise be detrimental to the administration
of justice. This would of course mean that if evidence (such as audio
recordings) is obtained in a manner that violates an employee’s right to
privacy, it would not be admissible. However, section 35(5) of the Constitution
qualifies this to essentially provide that such evidence would be admissible if
it is in the interests of justice to do so.
·
The Labour Court has made it clear
that employers may, in appropriate circumstances, utilise recorded
conversations in disciplinary hearings and legal proceedings as evidence
against an employee, considering the relevant facts of each case and the
balancing of the respective interests involved.
·
An employer can present evidence in
disciplinary hearings or arbitrations in the form of audio recordings (legally
or illegally obtained), if doing so would be in the interests of justice and
even if obtaining them infringes on an employee’s right to privacy.
·
However, employers are still
required to follow a fair process and provide the employee with a fair
opportunity to state his case and to respond to the evidence presented against
him.
The case law:
In
the case of Protea Technology v Wainer, the court held that in
respect of telephonic conversations pertaining to the employer’s affairs and at
the employer’s business, there was no legitimate expectation of privacy and the
employer was entitled to utilise recordings of such conversations as they were
recorded at the employer’s business premises and within business hours. The
employer was therefore entitled to require the employee to account for his
activities during this time.
In Harvey
v Niland and others, evidence was obtained by hacking into the
respondent's Facebook account. The court confirmed that South African courts
retain a discretion to admit tape recordings into evidence notwithstanding the
commission of an offence or the infringement of a constitutional right in
obtaining the recording. Thus, regardless of how audio recordings are obtained,
they may be admissible notwithstanding the infringement on constitutional
rights and especially when in the interests of justice.