According to a news report in The Daily Telegraph, 1,300 employees were informed by email that they had to hand over all company property and security passes on their way out of the building and submit all electronic passwords.
In this multi-media age, this kind of mistake is becoming ever more common. Many people reading the story will have some sympathy for the HR managers involved - it is all too easy to send an email to the wrong recipient or click on "reply all" by accident. Indeed, most of us would have to hold up our hands and confess to having sent an e-mail we shouldn't have.
But it has been made clear in employment cases that HR departments should be whiter than white in this respect and HR professionals have not been above criticism by the Employment Tribunal in some high profile cases. For example, in the case of Stephanie Villalba v Merrill Lynch, the Employment Tribunal was unhappy with emails sent by the HR department, noting that many of them had a "snide edge and a sneering tone". The Tribunal was also critical of an unwillingness to create a paper trail which would later become disclosable - one email said "prefer not to script on email", a clear reference to ensuring that discussions took place orally to avoid having to disclose their contents in subsequent litigation.
HR departments need to be even more careful than most what they commit to writing and how. Whilst mistakes on the scale of Aviva's are rare, it is very easy to confuse two employees with the same surname or accidentally misspell a name.
And what about the employees who received the rogue email? Whilst it must have been immediately clear to most of them that they had received the email in error, there is certainly potential for a claim that trust and confidence has been breached unless a retraction is sent extremely quickly.
There is also an issue in relation to the confidentiality of the one departing individual for whom the email was intended. Although that individual was leaving in any event, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he could bring a personal injury claim against the company in relation to stress caused by the manner of his dismissal - similar claims have succeeded in the past. In addition, had the circumstances been slightly different, with HR revealing some confidential details of a continuing employee to the whole workforce, there could certainly be a claim for constructive dismissal.
Some would say that it would simply be easier for important communications such as these to be sent in hard copy to avoid these embarrassing and potentially costly email mistakes. But it is becoming more and more common for email and even text messages to be used in this way. A few years ago, sending employee communications by text message would have seemed ridiculous. Some employees would now find it more normal and more practical to receive communications in this way than to receive a hard copy letter sent to their home address. Some employees may appreciate the immediacy of a text message or an email over the more "old fashioned" approach.
Perhaps different forms of communication are appropriate for different employees? Should HR consider communicating with some employees electronically and some by letter?
This may well be appropriate in some workforces - but employers should be aware that treating different employees differently could give rise to allegations of discrimination. It shouldn't be as simple as sending older employees letters whilst younger employees receive emails. A better approach would be for employers to ask their employees how they would like to receive communications.
In any event, what Aviva has shown us all is that HR departments need to think carefully about how to communicate with their workforce - and always double check the "To" field before clicking "send".
Beth Hale, senior associate, Stephenson Harwood
