We might add that that is rather obvious. How can one work comfortably, in an environment of trust, if your workplace chatter was being surreptitiously recorded by a coworker?

While Shalagin attempted to justify the recordings to learn English, track compensation discussions and address alleged workplace discrimination, he acknowledged that his colleagues would have felt uncomfortable about these recordings. Yet he continued to make them for years.

His justifications fell short because the recordings included personal and sensitive information. Some had no connection to the workplace. Any trust between Shalagin and his colleagues was irreparably damaged.

This court accepted that Shalagin’s actions were not malicious and there was no evidence that they were ever shared outside of the court process. But they were mostly made “for the advantage of the (employee)” contrary to Mercer’s workplace policies, and the CPA Code, which holds Shalagin to a higher standard of accountability to Mercer.

Preventatively, employees should be warned that surreptitious recordings have consequences. You can still lose your job or potentially even be sued for violating confidentiality.

Shalagin knew that, while it was not illegal to surreptitiously record, it was morally and ethically wrong. The sheer volume and many years of recording of his colleagues established to the court that his actions were not a “momentary lapse of judgement.” Shalagin knew what he was doing.

Especially when recording conversations is so easy with phones, laptops and apps, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams, there is a real risk of being surreptitiously recorded which employees and employers should be wary of. That is why employers should enact policies specifically prohibiting it, without consent, so that there can be no misapprehension.