An employee of a retailing company complained that the manager of the branch at which he worked told the employee's wife that he was suspected of stealing from the company.

The manager explained that he had approached the employee's wife to get some facts and clues about certain thefts. He had taken an informal approach because he was related to the employee's wife. He said that he had not determined who was responsible for the thefts when he spoke to the wife, but was merely looking at the possible suspects.

I considered that the manager's action amounted to an interference with the employee's privacy.

Because of the family relationship, I first had to consider whether the manager made the disclosure in connection with his role at the company or in some personal capacity, given his connection with the family. Section 56 of the Privacy Act provides that nothing in the information privacy principles applies in respect of personal information held by an individual where the information is held solely or principally in connection with that individual's personal, family or household affairs.

In this case, it was clear that the manager held information about the employee through his role as manager of the branch at which the employee worked. He did not hold that information solely or principally in connection with his own family affairs. I considered that the information privacy principles applied to the disclosure.

The complaint raised issues under principle 11, which limits the instances in which personal information can be disclosed. However, both the company and the manager accepted that there had been a disclosure to the employee's wife which was not in accordance with company protocols.

I was of the view that none of the exceptions to principle 11 applied in the circumstances, so the disclosure breached principle 11. A breach of principle 11 will be an interference with privacy only if it results in an adverse impact to the individual concerned as specified in s 66. In the circumstances I considered that the disclosure had resulted in significant humiliation to the employee (s 66(1)(b)(iii)).

The company offered the employee a written apology and $200 worth of grocery vouchers. The employee accepted settlement on this basis and I discontinued my investigation.

Indexing terms: Disclosure of personal information - Employer - Suspicion of theft by employee - Manager disclosed suspicions to employee's wife - Manager related to of employee's wife - Information not held in connection with family affairs - Disclosure caused significant humiliation - Settlement - Privacy Act 1993, ss 56 & 66(1)(b)(iii) - Information privacy principle 11

May 1999