Employee Records Exemption Limited to Employee Matters

A recent decision of the Privacy Commissioner emphasises that when handling records relating to employees, or former employees, it is important to be aware that the exemption in relation to such records, has important limitations.  These limitations are consistent with the rationale for granting the exemption.

The Context

The Privacy Act (a Federal Act) imposes on many private sector organisations an obligation to comply with the National Privacy Principles.  One of these principles provides that an organisation bound by the Act must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose other than the primary purpose of collection unless a relevant exemption in that National Privacy Principle applies.

The Facts

In this case, the complainant was a person who had been employed for several years by a large cleaning company, before resigning from the position.  At the time of resignation, the complainant owed money to another organisation and had entered into a repayment arrangement, but subsequently defaulted.

The organisation contacted the former employer, the cleaning company, seeking information as to the complainant's whereabouts.  The cleaning company (the former employer) disclosed certain personal information, including an address and financial details of the complainant, who then made a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

The Decision

The Privacy Commissioner determined that the employee records exemption did not apply because the disclosure of the information was not related to the question of employment, and therefore was an act or practice unrelated to the administration of the complainant's employment or former employment.  Accordingly, the disclosure was not exempt and must comply with the National Privacy Principles.

The remedy in this case was that, as the cleaning company had apologised to the complainant and had agreed to develop and implement privacy training for all staff in the management of personal information, no further action was necessary.  However, the case is an important reminder that the interpretation of an exemption from an obligation should be made in a manner consistent with the rationale of that exemption.