1 Feb 2007, 09:00

A woman was a regular customer of a bar and restaurant in a small town. She complained that the bar manager had disclosed information about her to her employer. The woman said the manager had told her employer that the complainant's eftpos transactions were often declined for relatively small sums of money, and that she played the gaming machines a lot, using change bags of $1 and $2 coins.

The woman said that, as a result of the disclosures, she felt unwelcome at the bar and that she was the centre of attention. She also said that the bar manager's comments implied that she could not manage her money or that she was a thief and this affected her reputation in the community. She claimed that she may have to move away from the town to seek further employment.

The complaint raised issues under principle 11 of the Privacy Act. This principle provides that when an agency holds personal information, it must not disclose that information except in limited circumstances. This applies to all “agencies”, as defined under the Privacy Act, including small businesses, such as the bar and restaurant involved here.

Information about gambling

First, it was clear that the woman was a regular customer at the bar. The poker machines that she played were on view to other patrons. Her employer was well aware of her gambling.

In order for there to be a “disclosure” under principle 11, information must be imparted that was not previously known to the person receiving it. Since the information about the woman's gambling or her use of bags of coins was not new information to the employer, this was not a breach of principle 11. Given that her gambling took place in public, it would also have been difficult for the woman to show she suffered embarrassment at a level that would amount to an “interference” with her privacy under section 66.

Information about eftpos transactions

I was satisfied that the employer was not previously aware of the woman's eftpos transactions being declined. I was also satisfied that this disclosure breached principle 11. There was no relevant exception which justified the disclosure in the circumstances.

However, this disclosure did not cause the woman harm so as to be an “interference” with her privacy. The employer did not in fact think worse of her. The woman's job was not affected. There was no evidence that the employer or the manager had passed on the information to anyone else. The woman's reputation, or ability to find other work in the community, had therefore not been affected. While she had undoubtedly been somewhat embarrassed, there was evidence that this was not particularly significant here.

I informed the bar manager, however, that such a disclosure in other circumstances might cause considerable harm. I therefore advised the bar manager to avoid such disclosures in the future.

June 2007

Disclosure of personal information – bar and restaurant – disclosure to complainant's employer – meaning of “disclosure” - breach of principle 11 in part – no adverse consequences under section 66 – no interference with privacy