Resources: Blog

Email and IT policies


Think before you click

The internet and email are essential tools for most businesses. Email makes correspondence and transactions simple and efficient, but it is also easy to send the wrong email to the wrong recipient!

The internet and email are essential tools for most businesses. Email makes correspondence and transactions simple and efficient, but it is also easy to send the wrong email to the wrong recipient!

Employer provided IT, internet and email services are prone to abuse and misuse by employees, sometimes deliberately and other times not. To guard against deliberate misuse and to assist employees to be more mindful of their use of IT services, employers should have both an email and IT policy that outlines the proper use of such tools and services, and the consequences for inappropriate or misuse of the same.

Generally these policies should include a minimum statement to the effect that:

  • internet and email facilities are provided for business purposes only and should be limited to such use;
  • internet and email use and content will be monitored;
  • unauthorised use of the internet and email is not permitted;
  • employees must not access or send emails which contain content that is inappropriate, harassing or which may bring the business into disrepute;
  • emails sent using employer provided services should be professional and courteous; and
  • disciplinary action may be taken for breaches of the policy.


Two recent case examples demonstrate the importance of having email and IT policies.

In GS v Cosmetic Suppliers Pty Ltd T/A Coty [2017] FWC 1838, the employee lodged an unfair dismissal application after her employment was terminated as result of loss of trust and confidence following breaches of the IT User Conduct Policy and the Code of Conduct. The employee was employed as a Key Accounts Manager and was responsible for managing client accounts and overseeing customer service.

The employee’s breaches arose from two emails she had sent on one day in November 2016. In the first email, sent to the customer service team, she berated them and told them they were “totally incompetent”.

The second email, intended for a colleague, contained disparaging and racially offensive comment about some of the employer’s clients. Significantly, this email was also sent to the employer’s client contacts who promptly advised the employer that they would no longer work with the employee.

The employee explained that she had copied the client contacts in the email to provide to the colleague and had inadvertently kept them in the “CC” field.

The employee also submitted that she was suffering from PTSD, work related stress and was unsupported by management.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) dismissed the employee’s unfair dismissal application, finding there was a valid reason for the termination of employment.

The FWC held that the email content was derogatory and offensive even without it being sent to the clients.

In dismissing the claim, the FWC noted that the employee’s conduct was in breach of the Code of Conduct and IT User Conduct Policy which prohibited users from making statements that would be embarrassing to the user or the employer if made public. Further, that the email was sent to the clients magnified the misconduct and caused damage to the employer’s reputation and relationship with the clients.


In SH v Murdoch University [2017] FWC 2174, the employee’s employment was terminated for serious misconduct due to breaches of the Code of Conduct and Email and Electronic Messaging Guidelines.

In that case, the employee sent emails using his Murdoch University work email address to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) relating to the 2016 Census, using inappropriate and offensive language.

Murdoch University became aware of the email after receiving a complaint directly from the ABS.

The FWC dismissed the employee’s submissions that he did not deliberately send the emails from his work email account and did not consider which account he was using. The employee also submitted that his conduct did not amount to serious misconduct and there was no evidence that Murdoch University suffered reputational damage.

The FWC held that the there was a valid reason for the dismissal. It held that the employee’s misconduct was wilful and had the potential to cause reputational risk to Murdoch University. It was noted that the employee forwarded the emails to others and the emails were later posted on social media by a third party.


For employers, it is important that there is either a policy or guidelines which outline the standard expected of employees when using email or other technology resources.

These recent cases also serve as a reminder to employees of work email etiquette: remember, the easiest way to avoid disciplinary action is to keep the use of your work email restricted to appropriately worded work related communications and other approved communications.


Similar articles

FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.


Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.


Dismissals for temporary illnesses under the FW Act

Red Light, Green Light

Within the general protections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), there is a protection afforded to employees who are temporarily absent from work because of an illness or injury.


Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.


Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.