FC5358

There are two elements to the report: the lack of provision of company e-devices; and the expectation to monitor and action company communications when not on duty.

Regarding the first element, the reporter states that the company does not contribute to the cost of personal devices but the company comment contradicts this; it may be that the company contribution is not widely known about or understood, and so we have suggested that they may wish to clarify this to their crews. Having made a contribution to costs, the company expects crews to access company email on their personal devices, along with documents and manuals.

Although it’s not unreasonable to expect employees to have mobile phones and be contactable by email etc, we don’t think that the assumption that everyone has a personal laptop or tablet that they will be able (or willing) to use for company business is particularly robust. Most companies provide tablets to their crews if they expect them to review documents or conduct company business away from the work environment; the safety angle being that if someone refuses to download company apps, documents etc to their personal devices, what method would the company have to provide them with access to company material? Also, in allowing people to use their own devices to access company materials, there is potentially increased cyber security risk from malware or viruses. Company devices can have robust anti-virus/malware measures incorporated by the IT department, whereas that is not assured for personal devices and so people who access public routers or click on links during personal browsing might easily inadvertently transfer malware into company emails or websites.

In respect of 24/7 communications, this is something that we have engaged with many times in the past with various companies and their personnel. The simple fact is that you are not required to be contactable when off duty. That is not to say that the company can’t send emails etc for information or alerting, but they have no right to expect a response or for people to action such emails when off duty. The reporter’s company say that they do not expect anyone to respond to company material during off-duty hours but this somewhat ignores the implied (and sometimes overt) pressures that can be perceived by those who receive ‘urgent’ or ‘time-bound’ company communications and so we have suggested that the company may also wish to clarify their expectations and policy to their crews in this respect.

CHIRP’s view is that there’s a balance to be made between an expectation that, as professionals, there’s a certain amount of off-duty reading to be done, but companies should not make unreasonable demands on people who are off-duty. The right to a private life away from work is something that is currently a topic of conversation in the wider community and may well lead to national legislation in future (already so in parts of the EU for example). We would agree that crews need to be contactable around the fringes of their duties so that they can be made aware of changes, but it should not be an expectation that people are constantly required to respond to emails and other communications when off duty or, even worse, when on leave.

Fundamentally, off-duty time should be free from work, and it is unacceptable for a company to expect people to respond to emails or conduct work activities during such periods. The safety and fatigue implications for disturbed rest are obvious, but, even outside of rest periods, a company has no right to expect employees to conduct work business when off duty and in their personal down-time. People might chose to do so, but it should not be an expectation or requirement.