Get access to the exclusive HR Resources you need to succeed in 2018.
Sign up for free email newsletters and get more SHRM content delivered to your inbox.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 14 cities across the U.S. this fall.
Gain the skills you need to rise to the next level in your career. Jon us at SHRM's Leadership Development Forum, October 2-3 in Boston.
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
On Dec. 30, 2014, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed Senate Bill 1342 into law, amending the Eavesdropping Article of the Illinois Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/14), which was struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court last year as unconstitutional. The revised eavesdropping statute, which is effective immediately, criminalizes the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties to the conversation. The revised law provides employers with a safeguard against employees’ covertly recording coworkers in the workplace, but employers should still adopt policies banning nonconsensual recordings of private workplace conversations. Additionally, employers should be wary of taping interviews, telephone conversations, and the like—even for legitimate business reasons.
Key Amendments to Previously Invalidated Eavesdropping Law
The Illinois Supreme Court previously ruled that the eavesdropping statute was unconstitutional based on the statute’s overly broad criminalization of any conversation recorded without consent, regardless of whether the parties intended the conversation to be private or had an expectation of privacy. The revised statute attempts to remedy this by specifying that it only applies to a “private conversation,” defined as “an oral communication between 2 or more persons . . . when one or more of the parties intended the conversation to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation.”
The act also changes the term “electronic communication” to “private electronic communication,” defined as “any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence . . . transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, pager, computer . . . when the sending or receiving party intends the electronic communication to be private under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation.”
Applying these definitions, the statute limits the crime of eavesdropping to instances when an individual surreptitiously records a private conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. The act further prohibits an individual from intercepting, recording, or transcribing a private electronic communication that he or she is not a party to without the consent of all parties to the electronic communication.
What This Means for Employers
The revised eavesdropping statute provides employers with a ready-made eavesdropping policy and removes the cloud of confusion that has hung over employers since the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the eavesdropping statute last March. However, it is not enough for employers to merely rely on the law’s restrictions—employers should disseminate an eavesdropping policy that prohibits employees from recording private workplace conversations without consent. Public sector employers in particular should pay close attention to the act’s limitations and ensure that they do not restrict the rights employees have under the act to record non-private conversations in the workplace. Lastly, employers should not deem themselves above the act’s restrictions. An employer that records an investigatory interview or disciplinary meeting will violate the act, notwithstanding the fact that the employer may have a legitimate business reason for doing so.
Employers should also be careful on how they craft their policies in light of pending cases before the National Labor Relations Board challenging the legality, under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), of employer policies that restrict employees’ ability to record conversations. Employers are encouraged to work with their legal counsel to craft a policy that contemplates possible NLRA issues. Lastly, employers should not deem themselves above the act’s restrictions. An employer that records an investigatory interview or disciplinary meeting will violate the act, notwithstanding the fact that the employer may have a legitimate business reason for doing so.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
CA Resources at Your Fingertips
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 10,000 companies