Sponsor Statement for HB 319

Sponsor Statement for CS for HB 319 (JUD)

An Act Relating to an Employee’s Expectation of Privacy in Employer Premises

By Representative Norman Rokeberg

CSHB 319 (JUD) addresses a contemporary issue. With the advent of modern technology and the use of it in office places, many employees are using employer’s business equipment to access the Internet and send e-mail messages. While some employers have policies in place that make the employer’s policy on this use plain, many do not. CSHB 319 (JUD) would make it clear that, absent a written agreement to the contrary, an employee has no expectation of privacy on an employer’s business premises, or while using an employer’s business equipment or services.

My 1998 House District 11 survey posed the following question: Should state law allow an employer the right to regulate all employee use of employer facilities and equipment (i.e., internet, computer games, etc.)? An overwhelming majority (341) favored such a law while a minority (86) opposed.

A lawsuit involving the University of Alaska at Fairbanks brought this matter to my attention. This case involved a University employee who used his University equipment to download child pornography to a personally owned ZIP drive. This legislation would not impact this type of case since the ZIP drive was personally owned equipment. However, if all equipment involved had been owned by the University then this legislation would apply.

CSHB 319 (JUD) does permit the employee and employer to negotiate a written agreement regarding access to business premises and business equipment. It is a step towards protecting both the employer and the employee and helping each party understand the other party’s rights in the areas of workplace privacy and use of business premises and business equipment.

The original version of the bill was amended in the House Labor & Commerce committee to provide that: (1) the agreements be written; (2) an employee’s personal property is not covered; and (3) the legislation would apply only to business premises and business equipment (thus not covering any residential facilities provided by an employer to an employee). These provisions are retained in the House Judiciary version and the following addition was made:

an employee’s expectation of privacy was not waived in the following instances: personal telephone calls, oral conversations, and employee-owned equipment used for the employer’s business.

I would urge your support of this legislation.

ED3:5/01/98

Sponsor Statement for CS for HB 319 (L&C)

An Act Relating to an Employee’s Expectation of Privacy in Employer Premises

By Representative Norman Rokeberg

CSHB 319 (L&C) addresses a contemporary issue. With the advent of modern technology and the use of it in office places, many employees are using employer’s business equipment to access the Internet and send e-mail messages. While some employers have policies in place that make the employer’s policy on this use plain, many do not. CSHB 319 (L&C) would make it clear that, absent a written agreement to the contrary, an employee has no expectation of privacy on an employer’s business premises.

CSHB 319 (L&C) does permit the employee and employer to negotiate a written agreement regarding access to business premises and business equipment. It is a step towards protecting both the employer and the employee and helping each party understand the other party’s rights in the areas of workplace privacy and use of business premises and business equipment.

I would urge your support of this legislation.

ED2:3/28/98

Sponsor Statement for HB 319

An Act Relating to an Employee’s Expectation of Privacy in Employer Premises

By Representative Norman Rokeberg

House Bill 319 addresses a contemporary issue. With the advent of modern technology and the use of same in office places, many employees are using employer’s equipment to access the Internet and send e-mail messages. While some employers have policies in place that make the employer’s policy on this use plain, many do not. House Bill 319 would make it clear that, absent an agreement to the contrary, an employee has no expectation of privacy on an employer’s premises.

My 1998 House District 11 survey posed the following question: Should state law allow an employer the right to regulate all employee use of employer facilities and equipment? (i.e., internet, computer games, etc.). An overwhelming majority (341) favored such a law while a minority (86) opposed.

A lawsuit involving the University of Alaska at Fairbanks brought this matter to my attention. An employee should not have the ability to use an employer’s equipment and then not expect the employer to be able to terminate that employee for improper use of such equipment.

House Bill 319 does permit the employee and employer to negotiate an agreement regarding access to premises and equipment. It is a step towards protecting both the employer and the employee and helping each party understand the other party’s rights in the areas of workplace privacy and use of premises and equipment.

I would urge your support of this legislation.

ED1:3/23/98