Technology has and continues to
impart all aspects of human existence. Work and Employment are no exceptions.
Since the Industrial Revolution, Employment, and the complexities of the Work
Place have evolved severally and systemically. In recent times, work has
shifted from the conventional skill and labour orientation to a more
sophisticated technical orientation. This shift is substantially due to the
impacts of modernization and improvements in technology. This technology
infusion in workplace has generally affected affairs and interactions.

Recently, fear has been
instilled in the hearts of countless actual and prospective employees (skilled
and unskilled); Artificial Intelligence is going to take over the jobs that are
eve inadequate in the first place. Notwithstanding this scare, the importance
of technology is unquantifiable. It cannot be over emphasized in the area of
employment.
EMPLOYMENT
BEFORE THE INCEPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
Before the advent of technology
in the work place, offices placed advertisements for employment via the mass
media. I remember seeing graduates in my area way back rushing to the newspaper
stand every morning to check for job vacancies! Applications by applicants were
submitted either personally or by post. Job interviews were conducted only
physically or what lawyers commonly term inter
praesentes
(FACE-TO-FACE). Even when a person was eventually employed, work
was done based on either the skill or labour of the employee i.e. productivity
was majorly based on the output of the employee. Clients outside the
jurisdiction of the companies had to either take long trips or undergo the
rigour of posting letters in other to pass on simple information to the
company. Once members of the Board of Directors were absent or offshore,
companies were grounded, brought to a standstill and could not make major
decisions.
POSITIVE
IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY
At this juncture, it is
important to consider the positive impact of technology on employment in
Nigeria in recent times:
First, communication at work
place has improved immensely due to the introduction of smart phones, chat-apps
and video conferencing. Sending of emails, texts, and even documents are now
seamlessly done via the internet. Also, technology has improved work through
remote-working, tele-conferencing and co-working which have all ensured the
possibility of the work-from-home phenomenon; office work carried outside the
office. This is possible through apps such as Google-chat, Redbooth,
Go-to-meeting, Zoom etc. Online (Google) maps also help in navigating
unfamiliar places and enhance communication with locals.
Furthermore, in work
organization, technology has assisted in keeping business fully organized
through software such as Project Management Software, Facility Management
Software, SaaS Tools (when installed in a work places, eliminates manual
handling of task by automating when possible and focusing on integration of
different tasks) etc. This has helped improve the quality, efficiency and
degree of output of work done in diverse organizations.
In addition, Technology has
ameliorated the security of confidential information. This is achieved through
an end-to-end encryption of data on hardware and software and access to them is
possible through finger prints, facial recognition and passwords. Even
lockers/safes containing hardcopy data can also be secured by technology.
Lastly, technology has
monumentally improved employee/employer relationship. Accountability of
employees can also be monitored through the use of CCTV, Clocking system etc.
Also, during training of employees, technology can be applied through the use
of different applications in improving of the professionalism of the employee.
NEGATIVE
IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY
Since the advent of technology
and through its years of improvement, the fear that the technological change
will lead to mass unemployment has remained inherent in man. In a much cited
1983 article, a great economist Wassily Leontief stated that with the rapid
pace of modern technology, it may be impossible for many workers to adjust.
Workers are being displaced from employment by machines that could work faster
and better within time. This displacement eventually leads to poverty.
Although, some Economists have disproved these assertions saying that this is
not possible as it has always been the situation since the Industrial
Revolution. Jobs and workplace will only change and people will adapt to the
new jobs. Workers will adjust to the new trends and then definition of work and
workplace will change.
Also, the advent of technology
in the work place has broken down the bridge between work life and home life as
even after the close of work, employees still receive tasks via emails,
telephone calls etc. and have to meet up with deadlines even while at home. The
work continues even while employees are on ‘leave’ from work and this causes
stress on the employees which eventually leads to lack of efficiency and health
problems. It must not be overlooked that the use of computers and other
electronically appliances in the workplace are subject to the availability of
electricity. Where there is power shortage, data being processed and other
relevant information would automatically be wiped out except there is a backup.
Moreover, softwares are prone to be affected by virus and this damages all
relevant files and database, confidential information stored on the computer.
LEGAL/ETHICAL
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH TECHNOLOGY AT THE WORKPLACE
The 21st century
storm of technology has raised a lot of legal/ethical issues particularly as it
relates to the workplace. Although, these cases are few in Nigeria, there are
quite a number of them within foreign jurisdictions.[i]
In Nigeria, employers take
disciplinary actions against employees for acting against laid down social
media usage rules; where an employee posts what is deemed as “inappropriate
information” on social media which would reasonably operate to belittle or
diminish the integrity of the organization. Such disciplinary actions include
termination of the employment of erring employees, instituting legal actions
against them, et al.
It is meanwhile the opinion of
the author that gross misconduct at work through the use of technology or
social media by an employee can lawfully
occasion termination of employment of such erring employee. This opinion is
firmly anchored upon a number of cases where gross misconduct was held as a
ground for lawful termination of employment and substantiated by some crucial
judicial authorities. Although none of the cases directly exemplifies or
addresses a circumstance where use of social media by an employee was found to
amount to gross misconduct, the legal reasoning that follows below is incisive
nonetheless.
In EZE v. SPRING BANK PLC [2011] 11-12 (pt.1) SCM, 93, the
following definition was brought to focus:
“Gross
misconduct has been identified as a conduct that is of a grave and weighty
character as to undermine the confidence which should exist between an employee
and the employer
”.
It is submitted that the above
definition of gross misconduct spaciously covers any improper act of an
employee on social media which brings the employer into disrepute. In
continuation, the Supreme Court in the afore-cited case stated:
An
employee may be summarily dismissed without notice and without wages if he is
guilty of gross misconduct. It is no longer the law for an employer to wait for
court’s pronouncement on a gross misconduct of his employee bordering on crime
before dismissing him
”.
From the foregoing, it is
further submitted that gross misconduct emanating from an improper use of
social media can lead to the dismissal of an erring employee.
Furthermore, Section 37 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) stipulates
that every citizen of Nigeria has the right to personal privacy, even in their
homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic conversation.
Suffice it to say that the employee in a workplace has his/her privacy
safeguarded by the Nigeria Constitution. A question however rears its head:
“Can
an individual’s fundamental right to privacy) be limited by an employment
agreement which is inferior to the constitution?”
The author answers in the
negative.  
Telecommuting can generate legal
issues arising from the determination of time spent on work, overtime and even
commitment of employees to work while physically away from work. “Telecommuting
(also known as working from home, or e-commuting) is a work arrangement in
which the employee works outside the office, often working from home or a
location close to home (including coffee shops, libraries, and various other
venues). Rather than traveling to the office, the employee “travels” via
telecommunication links, keeping in touch with coworkers and employers via
telephone and email.”
Issues may arise from whether
employees who neglect or refuse to turn in the work outside work hours can be
queried. It is advised that employers establish a Telecommuting Policy
specifically relating to certain position or designations within the
organization. Also, employers may need to execute an agreement with the
employee outlining what is expected from employees during such work time. Such
agreement may also contain how to document time spent working.
In the same vein, it must be
emphasized that the incidence of employers having access to passwords of
employees’ social media account without the freewill or consent of such
employees is unreasonable and a brazen infringement on the fundamental right of
privacy of such employees.
In another related scenario, the
use of video surveillance by employers on employee in the workplace does not
necessarily breach constitutional rights. Although, actions can be instituted
against employers preventing the use of employee monitoring in areas designated
for health and personal comfort such as restrooms, locker rooms or lounge.  However, in the United State of America,
certain states have enacted laws prohibiting disclosure of personal social media
passwords of employees to their employers and use of video surveillance in
certain areas on employees.[ii]
Importantly however, in order to
prevent avoidable legal issues or controversies, employers must ensure that
Social Media Policies are carefully and expertly formulated and communicated to
their respective employees.
CONCLUSION/
RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, due to the
dynamics and speed-of-lightning nature of technological development, more
challenging legal/ethical issues are bound to arise in future. Employees and
Employers are hereby advised to:
1.      Ensure
that privacy rights of employees are not infringed upon in the workplace
through the use of technology
2.      Employers
should ensure that computer use policies that provide for employer monitoring
in the workplace should be clearly communicated to the employees
3.      Employees
should undergo adequate training on acceptable use, storage and retention of
data in the workplace
4.      Policies
regarding emails, internet, social media and passwords should be frequently
reviewed and updated given the constant nature of change in technology.

Adeyemi O. Owoade, ESQ

Adeyemi O. Owoade is a Legal Practitioner in  Ololade
Ogunbanjo & Co. Ijebu Ode, Ogun State, Nigeria. He has keen interest in
Labour law, Finance and ICT Law. 



[i]
See for example Smith v Colorado Interstate Natural Gas Co. 777 F. SUPP 854 (D.
Colo 1991). Pietrylo v. Hillstone Rest. Grp (2009) U.S. Dist. Lexis 88702. City
of San Diego v. Roe 543 U.S. 77(2004). Palleschi  v. Cassano 2013 WL 3222573 (N.Y. App. Div.
Jan. 29, 2013.) Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp, 872 F.SUPP.2d
369, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis. 74558 (D.N.J., 2012).  
[ii]
Connecticut and Delaware require employers to notify employees while monitoring
their email communication. Colorado and Tennessee requires public entities to
adopt a policy related to public employee email. In McLauren v. Microsoft Corp.
(1999) TEX APP LEXIS 4103 (Tex APP May 28, 1999), it was held that whatever was
sent by the employee through the workplace mail is the property of the
employer. In TBG INSURANCE SERVICES CORP. v. SUPERIOR CT. G6, no reasonable
expectation of privacy in an employer’s computer located in an employee’s home.
In Garrity v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co 2002, it was held that no
reasonable expectation of privacy in emails transmitted on employer’s computer
system; employer’s interest in promoting sexual harassment is greater than
employee’s privacy interest.
Some states in the United States of America have
outlawed the use of GPS and Radio Frequency Identification devices on their
employees.
References
1.      
Dan Schmidtt, Kenneth G, ‘Labor Law 2.0: The
Impact of New Information Technology on the Employment Relationship and the
Relevance of NLRA (2015) Articles by Maurer faculty Paper 1778 http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1778
2.      
Eddy D. Ventose, ‘Internet & Technology
Usage in the Networked Workplace: Legal Implications’. Available on https://www.onecaribbean.org/wp-content/uploads/LegalAspectsInternetUsageWorkplace.pdf
3.      
J. Ella, ‘Employee Monitoring and Workplace
Privacy Law’ American Bar Association, Section of Labor and Employment Law
(2016) available on https://www.ameriacnbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2016/04/tech/papers/monitoring_ella.authcheck-dam.pdf
4.      
J.
Yarby, ‘Legal and Ethical Issues of Employee Monitoring’ Online Journal of
Applied Knowledge Management Volume 1, Issue2, 2013, pp44-55
5.      
Law
Now, ‘Technology at the Workplace – A European Overview of Employment Law
Issues in a Modern Working Environment’ (Online) posted on 18th May,
2017 on
https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2017/05/technology-at-the-workplace accessed on 9th February,2019.
6.      
Oladele Ogunshote and Eberechi Ukejianya,
‘Getting the Deal Through – LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT 2007’, STREAMSOWERS &
KOHN
For meaning of Telecommuting
vihttps://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-telecommuting-2062113


[1] See
for example Smith v Colorado Interstate Natural Gas Co. 777 F. SUPP 854 (D.
Colo 1991). Pietrylo v. Hillstone Rest. Grp (2009) U.S. Dist. Lexis 88702. City
of San Diego v. Roe 543 U.S. 77(2004). Palleschi  v. Cassano 2013 WL 3222573 (N.Y. App. Div.
Jan. 29, 2013.) Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp, 872 F.SUPP.2d
369, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis. 74558 (D.N.J., 2012).  

[1]
Connecticut and Delaware require employers to notify employees while monitoring
their email communication. Colorado and Tennessee requires public entities to
adopt a policy related to public employee email. In McLauren v. Microsoft Corp.
(1999) TEX APP LEXIS 4103 (Tex APP May 28, 1999), it was held that whatever was
sent by the employee through the workplace mail is the property of the
employer. In TBG INSURANCE SERVICES CORP. v. SUPERIOR CT. G6, no reasonable
expectation of privacy in an employer’s computer located in an employee’s home.
In Garrity v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co 2002, it was held that no
reasonable expectation of privacy in emails transmitted on employer’s computer
system; employer’s interest in promoting sexual harassment is greater than
employee’s privacy interest.