Resources: Blog

How confidential information can escape from open-plan offices


Prison break!

Open-plan offices allow managers to observe their teams at all times much like wardens, but the reverse is also true – employees can likewise see and hear what their managers are up to and may be exposed to information that is not necessarily meant for their consumption.

The design of the open-plan office originates from an 18th century prison design according to Alex Haslam, an organisational psychologist and professor at the University of Queensland. In an interview with ABC radio earlier this year and in articles about his own research, Haslam has likened the principles of the open-plan office with the panopticon prison design where cells are arranged around a central well from which wardens can at all times observe their prisoners.

Open-plan offices allow managers to observe their teams at all times much like wardens, but the reverse is also true – employees can likewise see and hear what their managers are up to and may be exposed to information that is not necessarily meant for their consumption.

Unlike a prison, modern open-plan offices are intended to encourage team work, collaboration, and transparency. They also allow for flexible office reshuffling when numbers fluctuate and in that sense, are a great solution for employers who want to foster a team environment with the flexibility to make changes quickly and without a construction crew as business needs alter.

But, open-plan offices are filled with distractions that can impact on productivity or alienate employees who feel they have no control over their environment. Most significantly, open-plan office spaces risk the disclosure of confidential information, not just to employees who shouldn’t be privy to certain things but also to visitors in the office. Open-plan offices can expose employers to unnecessary risk.

Consider for example, a sales employee who overhears their boss discussing some statistics on the phone with another manager. That employee then repeats those numbers to a friend, failing to understand the significance of those numbers and forgetting that their friend has resigned and is leaving to join a competitor. The lack of privacy for the manager has lead to a breach of the business’s confidential information and the employee may have breached their employment contract as well as their obligations to act in their employer’s best interests. As a result, the employer is exposed and the employee may face disciplinary action.

Open-plan environments are particularly problematic for managers whose roles are commercially or legally sensitive. HR managers are a good example of this – they deal with confidential information all day, every day including the personal details of individual employees (including sensitive health information) and company recruitment strategies, through to the reasons behind dismissing employees. The work HR managers do is not just commercially and legally confidential, it’s also very emotionally sensitive. An employee gossiping about what they have overheard or glimpsed on a HR manager’s computer could seriously derail workplace harmony and could potentially breach privacy laws – including those dealing with health information.

As previously mentioned, employers should also be mindful of their exposure to risk when outsiders visit the office. It’s not uncommon for potential clients to be given a tour after a meeting, or for existing clients to treat the space as their own when they visit. The consequences of these visitors wandering into the HR, finance or legal team’s section could be very serious and if they do, how are those teams expected to react? Are they expected to stop work, hang up the phone, lock their screens and tuck away their papers each time they are approached?

Protecting confidential information is vital to business success and healthy competition, and employers should do everything they can to protect their confidential information. In doing so, employers need to think carefully about their office design and consider which employees need privacy because of the type of work they are required do. Many employees may benefit from a collaborative environment but a funky office design is not more important than a business’s confidential information.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.


Similar articles

What is the difference between confidential information and “know-how”?

No way, know how

During the course of the employment relationship, employees will inevitably gain knowledge or be exposed to information about the employer’s business that is considered confidential to its operations and which the employer does not want to be put out into the public domain.


FWC upholds dismissal of an employee who repeatedly and deliberately accessed customer’s confidential information without authorisation

Celebrity search

During the course of their employment, employees may have access to confidential information which belongs to their employer. This information may be in the form of personal information provided by customers and is therefore sensitive in nature.


The importance of consultation in the redundancy process

Talk to Me

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provides that a person will not be unfairly dismissed where the person was dismissed as a result of genuine redundancy.


Commission applies test confirmed by High Court in distinguishing between employee and contractor

Sham slam

In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission has applied the test recently confirmed by the High Court of Australia in CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2, in distinguishing between employees and contractors.


Full Bench looks at meaning of dismissed for the purposes of the unfair dismissal jurisdiction

Down but not out

The question of whether a demotion will constitute a dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was considered by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission NSW Trains v James [2022] FWCFB 55.


Employer fails to disprove adverse action claim

Step back

A recent decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has reaffirmed the standard of proof that is required to disprove allegations of unlawful adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


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.