In handling an employee compensation claim, the loss adjusters was found proper in using the contact details of the employee supplied by the employer to write to the employee for purpose of processing the claim.
Work injury suffered by appellant - employee compensation claim - employer filled in name and residential address in statutory Form 2 - Loss adjusters used the address to write to appellant about the incident - directed related purpose - DPP3
The Complaint
The appellant was an employee of X Limited ("X"). He suffered injury at work. X filed a Form 2, i.e. "Notice by Employer of the Death of an Employee or of an Accident to an Employee Resulting in Death or Incapacity" in compliance with the Employees' Compensation Ordinance by filling in the appellant's name and residential address in the Form and have it sent to the insurance company for further handling. The loss adjusters appointed by the insurance company used the contact information contained in Form 2 to write and contact the appellant for interview on the injury incident. The appellant took the view that the loss adjusters could have sent the letter to his office address instead of his residential address and accused the loss adjusters of using his residential address in manner in contravention of Data Protection Principle ("DPP") 3. He lodged a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner.
Findings by Privacy Commissioner
Having made inquiries with X and the loss adjusters and having also examined the contents of the letter (which was plainly clear that the purpose was to ask the appellant to attend an interview in relation to the injury he suffered) in question, the Privacy Commissioner was satisfied that the use of the appellant's address by the loss adjusters to write and follow up on the reported insurance claim was for a matter directly related to the purpose of collection and hence there was no prima facie case of contravention of DPP3. The Privacy Commissioner decided not to carry out an investigation under section 39(2)(d) and informed the appellant of his decision. Dissatisfied with the result, the appellant lodged an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Board.
The Appeal
The Board agreed with the decision made by the Privacy Commissioner. The Board was satisfied that the original purpose of collection of the residential address by X was for handling of matters relating to the Appellant's employment and that work injury fell within the scope of employment related matters. The disclosure of the appellant's address by X to the loss adjusters who subsequently used it to send letter to the appellant was for a purpose closely and directly related to the original purpose of collection, i.e. for employment related matters about the appellant.
The Board disagreed with the appellant's submission that the letter could be sent to the office address instead. The Board opined that the appellant was not entitled to dictate a particular mode of communication between him and his employer or insurer, so long as the mode of communication is lawful and effective.
The AAB Decision
The Appeal was dismissed.
uploaded on web in January 2009