Estimated reading time (in minutes)

If an employee can receive mail at their workplace , this mail is presumed to be of a professional nature, so that the employer is entitled to open them without the presence of the person concerned. But, as with the opening of computer files, with the only restriction that they are not identified as  personal  .

Presumption of professional character: Correspondence in the workplace:-

When it comes to correspondence received by an employee at their place of work, there is a presumption that it is of a professional nature. This presumption is similar to the approach taken with regard to an employee’s computer files. consequently, employers have the right to open these mailings even in the absence of the employee, provided that they are not explicitly identified as personal.

Opening envelopes: employment rights and confidentiality considerations: –

In the absence of an explicit indication on the envelopes designating them as personal or confidential, employers are entitled to regularly open letters received by employees. This includes the ability to use the contents of these letters as evidence if  necessary  .

It should be noted that in this particular judgment, the highest court disregards the fundamental freedom encompassed by the secrecy of correspondence. This freedom is an integral part of an individual’s privacy and must be respected even within the confines of the workplace.

The court’s decision raises important questions about the boundaries between an employee’s professional obligations and their right to privacy. While the presumption of professional nature exists for correspondence received in the workplace, it is crucial to strike a balance that respects employees’ right to privacy, particularly with regard to personal or confidential matters.

Employers should exercise caution and respect established confidentiality principles when handling correspondence. Clear policies and guidelines can help ensure a fair and respectful approach to mail management in the workplace while protecting employees’ privacy rights. These policies should emphasize the importance of clearly identifying personal or confidential correspondence, thereby allowing employees to maintain a reasonable expectation of confidentiality for these items.

In conclusion, if the correspondence received by an employee at his workplace is presumed to be of a professional nature, the secrecy of correspondence, considered a fundamental freedom, must be respected. Employers have the right to open submissions that do not indicate personal or confidential nature, but it is essential to balance an employee’s professional obligations with their right to privacy. Clear policies and guidelines can provide a framework for handling mail in the workplace while respecting privacy rights.

It should be noted that in this judgment, the High Court disregards the character of fundamental freedom which constitutes the secrecy of correspondence, which concerns the intimacy of private life and which, as such, must be respected even at the moment and at the workplace.