The not-so-fine print in work contracts normally makes it clear that employees are expected to return company property when they leave the job.
Apart from hardware, such as laptops and mobile phones, the property includes documents and information obtained during the course of employment.
So eyebrows were raised when two former Enemalta executives admitted in Parliament last week that they got permission to retain their computers when they left the corporation.
For industrial relations consultant Alfred Mallia Milanes, the issue has serious implications.
“It is unacceptable for someone to remain in possession of sensitive documents after leaving a job,” he says.
He argues there may be individual arrangements that allow employees to retain hardware but, as a rule, workers are expected to return property that belongs to the company.
It is unacceptable for someone to remain in possession of sensitive documents after leaving a job
Today, almost all contracts, ranging from those for clerks to top executives, include a confidentiality clause, he explains, binding the individual from divulging confidential information.
But there is an ethical dimension too, he adds. “It is also a question of decency by the individual who enjoyed a position of trust in a company.”
One of the Enemalta executives, Pippo Pandolfino, acknowledged that the two large files filled with documentation that heproduced while testifying in front of MPs in the Public Accounts Committee contained “sensitive” information.
He justified this by saying that he had kept the information with the blessing of then CEO Karl Camilleri.
“I kept the documents just in case my successor needed help of any sort,” Mr Pandolfino told MPs.
According to Hugh Peralta, a lawyer specialising in industrial law, there could be limited grounds for someone to retain a back-up of advice or information given while in employment.
If the employee fears the advice may be misplaced and has a reasonable understanding that he could be questioned about it during court proceedings, it may be legitimate for them to retain the information.
“Such documentation is to be kept strictly confidential and utilised solely in the employees’ self-defence if it is not produced by the employer,” Dr Peralta says.
Yet, this is a moot point, he argues, adding that the back-up has to be limited to the advice given and not include other matters the employee may have come across while in office.
Dr Peralta insists that, as a general principle, no Enemalta employee has the right to remove from the company’s premises any computer or related software and information that belong to the corporation.
“The principle applies unless there is legally valid authorisation for such removal,” he says.
Whether the authorisation given in the Enemalta cases is legally valid is another question – and one that is open to interpretation.
ksansone@timesofmalta.com