The paper "Modern Technology in the Workplace, the Status of Employer’ s Duties - Good Guys Company" is a great example of a business case study. The right to confidentiality is one of the most fundamental, significant and cherished human rights. It embodies the respect that civilised societies hold for the worth of personal integrity, dignity and sense of selfhood. However, in the modern world, the right to confidentiality is subject to invasion in the employment sector. Notably, employers have always assessed and supervised the work of employees besides assessing their employees’ potential, reliability and performance.
The advancement in modern technology that has paved the way to new sophisticated technology is available to employers. This technology arms employers with highly effective and advanced techniques of evaluation and supervision. An increased number of employers now have at their hand the instruments required to engage in testing, monitoring and surveillance of employees. Apparatus is in place that provides the employers with the means to pry into the personal affairs and lives of employees. As a result, the boundaries between an employee’ s pubic life and private life have become porous. Modern Technology in the Workplace Modern technology engenders more foolproof, frequent and facile supervision, but also makes possible secret supervision.
Naturally, employees raise concern over the invasion of their privacy by their employers. The interests of employees with respect to privacy often clash with their employer’ s interests in managing and controlling their workforce. As the sophistication of technology develops, the danger to the privacy of employees heightens. As a result, employees are turning to the legal system to seek redress of perceived wrongs perpetrated by their employers. For instance, in Saad V Chubb Security Pty Ltd (2012), the employees sued her employer for invasion of privacy under the Privacy Act 1988.
In this case, the employer had installed CCTV cameras to monitor employees’ activities. The employee’ s images were later posted on the Facebook site thereby infringing on the privacy of the employee. Although an employee of the firm might have posted the CCTV images, the employer had the right to protect the privacy of his employee. An employer basically has a duty to protect information that is private to an employee under the Fair Work ACT 2009 and Privacy Act of 1988.
However, the Privacy Act of 1988 exempt employee records because prospective employees do not have an employment relationship with the potential employer. Despite the exemption of employees’ records before employment, an employer has a duty of utilising employees’ records in a manner that directly linked to the employment relationship. The internet has made the boundaries between private life and public life porous because people are increasingly using the internet and social media platforms to find data about someone.
It is broadly accepted that the last twenty years of technological change has profound implications on the way work is carried out in scores of Austrian workplaces. The broad use of computers and the flexibility offered by the internet implies that office work can be performed anywhere away from the office. The internet has revolutionised access to, dissemination and exchange of huge amounts of data for social and work purpose. The internet facilitates efficient and speedy communication between staff and management and can give employees and employers a vast amount of information.
According to Davies, an author, the advancements in technology have blurred the boundaries between employees’ working lives and private lives (127). The author mentions a case of a teenager girl who was sacked from her employment for describing it as boring in social networking sites. The case of Hays Specialists Recruitment (Holdings) Ltd and Another v. Ions and another is a good example that demonstrates how the current technological advancements lead to potential issues for employees and employers. Damien O'Keefe v Williams Muir's Pty Ltd T/A Troy Williams The Good Guys  FWA 5311 (August 11, 2011) also how off-duty activities of employees can lead to dismissal or firing of employees.
The three cases mentioned above demonstrate the importance the employers and employees duties.
Baker & Mykenzie, Australian master human resources guide 2010, Australia: Wolter Kluwer Business, 2010.
Beatty, J & Samuelson, S, Cengage advantage books: Introduction to business law, UK, Cengage Learning.
Berman, Audry, Kozier & Erb’s fundamentals of nursing Australian Edition, Australia: Pearson Higher Education, 2014.
Blanpain, R, Labour law, human rights and social justice: Liber amicorum in honour of Prof.Dr. Ruth Ben Israel, Germany: Kluwer Law Internation, 2001.
Davies, Alex, Workplace law handbook 2011: Employment law and human resources, UK: Workplace Law Group, 2011.
Doycle, C & Bagaric Mirko. Privacy Law in Australia. Australia: Federation Press, 2009.
Roebuck, William, Privacy in E-business: promoting respect, trust and confidence in your organisation, UK: BSI, 2004.
Stewart, Cameron, Kerridge, Ian & Parker, Malcolm, The Australian medico-legal handbook, Australia: Elsevier Australia, 2007.
Weiss, M & Schmidt, M. Labour law and Industrial relations in Germany, Germany: Kluwer Law International, 2008.
Zillman, Stephanie, ‘Employee fired for Facebook comments: Spotlight on social media policy Part 1’, HCOnline, 2012. Accessed from http://www.hcamag.com/hr- news/employee-fired-for-facebook-comments-spotlight-on-social-media-policy-part- i-129243.aspx