E-mails are more often being viewed by judges as evidence in employment law cases. Managers should change their e-mailing habits accordingly.

In addition to the official performance review, a court may look at e-mails related to a fired employee’s performance. That could be both good and bad for companies.

If the content of the e-mails is consistent with the company’s decision to fire the employee, a court might look at that favorable. But if a manager repeatedly praised the employee through e-mail, that’s a different story.

The best bet? Managers should understand that e-mail creates a permanent record and that they shouldn’t write anything they wouldn’t want to print out and keep in the employee’s personnel file.

Does your company provide employees with cell phones or smartphones to use for business calls? If so, you may need to watch out for a big security concern.

A recent UK survey of companies and institutions revealed that 79% of employees conduct confidential conversations by cell phone, and 51% do so on a daily basis. However, only 18% of companies had security software in place on their phones.

Even businesses that carefully secure other communications may be unaware of the issue. Most people are used to making calls from standard, wired telephones, where security isn’t that big of an issue (unless the police or the FBI are wiretapping you). But cell phone signals can be picked up far more easily.

Cell phone service providers do provide some encryption with their services, but it is highly vulnerable.

What this means for your business is that such critical details as sales discounts, planned bids and sales leads, which are often discussed via cell phone, might fall into your rivals’ hands.

Problems could stem from a lack of communication between IT and management. If IT isn’t aware of what sort of calls are being made on the company-owned equipment, they may neglect to take proper security measures.

It’s important for IT to know what company-issued phones are being used for. That way, they can increase protection on the phone, if necessary.

What are your peers’ plans for adding new technologies next year?

Due to increased budgets, most companies plan to make their HR tech operations more efficient in 2010, rather than making new purchases, according to a recent survey by the International Association for Human Resource Information Management (IHRIM). Of the companies surveyed:

• 26% plan to “optimize currently implemented systems”
• 24% will implement previously purchased modules, and
• 19% will try to consolidate multiple systems under one vendor.

The good news: For most companies, the HR tech budget won’t go down. More than half of respondents said they’re spending will remain the same, 30% said it will increase, and 19% expect a decrease.

Among companies who will increase spending, they said they plan to invest more in:

• performance management systems (31.1%)
• business intelligence software (22.4%)
• e-recruiting and applicant tracking (21.3%)
• core HR management systems (20%), and
• onboarding programs (20%).

While many companies are reluctant to completely ban social networking sites in the workplace, there are some steps employers can take to minimize legal risks.

The primary dangers of employees using the sites include:

• legal issues, such as defamation and harassment
• the leaking of confidential information, and
• damage to the company’s reputation.

One solution many companies have found to be effective: Let employees know they’re being monitored.

It’s not enough to have employees sign off a policy when they’re hired — experts say firms should send periodic reminders to employees to refresh their memories of the policy and the company’s monitoring practices.

It won’t stop all personal Web use — and it must be combined with a serious and consistent enforcement of the policy — but it should dissuade employees from using the Web inappropriately while at work.

Managers in your company may have had problems with employees focused on fantasy football leagues during time they should’ve spent working. But have any been fired just for belonging to a fantasy league?

That’s what happened to four Fidelity Investments employees recently. Management intercepted an e-mail discussing the activity, investigated and fired employees who had organized the pools.

You see, competing in a fantasy football league for money ($20, in this case) is technically gambling, which is technically illegal in most places.

Fidelity also has its own policy against gambling in the workplace. Cameron Pettigrew, one of the employees who was fired, was aware of the policy, but claimed it was never strictly enforced, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports. He said he knew of several managers and execs who also played fantasy football.

In addition to the legality, the company said it also prohibits fantasy football because it’s a distraction. One recent study estimates a nationwide productivity loss of $275 to $435 million for each week of the football season.

But, many claim, it’s just one of many distractions — a list that includes social networking and holiday shopping. And we’d bet not many employees have been fired just for having a Facebook account.

Whatever your company’s policy, one thing’s clear: It needs to be enforced consistently. Letting execs do something that rank-and-file can’t sends the wrong message to employees (and, with a company of Fidelity’s stature, could send that message to the rest of the world, too).

What’s your opinion? Should Fidelity have fired the fantasy footballers? Let us know in the comments section below.

If employees send text messages on the company’s dime, the company should be able to monitor them, right? Maybe not, according to recent court decisions.

An employer gave cell phones to a group of employees so they could communicate via text messages. The contract with the wireless provider said the company would be charged an overage fee if any phone sent more than a certain number of words in a given month. Employees had to reimburse the company for those charges.

After one employee went over his limit four times, the company obtained copies of his messages from the wireless provider. The transcripts revealed the employee was sending a lot of personal messages — in fact, many of them were sexually explicit.

The employee was disciplined, but sued, claiming his privacy was violated when the vendor provided — and the company read — his personal messages.

A jury ruled in favor of the company, before an appeals court reversed the decision. The reason: The messages weren’t the company’s property because they were stored by a third-party vendor (unlike company e-mail, which is often held on the company’s own network).

Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. We’ll keep you posted on the outcome.

Cite: Quon v. Arch Wireless