EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY: WHERE IS THЕ BOUND OF THE EMPLOYER`S RIGHT TO MONITOR EMPLOYEES` COMMUNICATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5937/spz64-29470Keywords:
right to privacy, principles of legitimacy, proportionality and transparency, monitoring at work, monitoring employees’ communicationsAbstract
Starting from the assumption that employees enjoy the protection of private life in relation to their employers, this paper seeks to answer the question how the right to privacy as a civil right can be incorporated into labour law without, concurrently, undermining the nature of the employment relationship, and considering the subordination as its primary feature. Accordingly, the nature of this right is analysed and the conditions under which it can be restricted in the workplace. Taking into account that the breaches of privacy and even more subtle ways of breach have increased in frequency in the workplace, the author deals with the issue of monitoring the employee’s communication, pointing to the high sensitivity of this topic, since at the same time numerous legitimate interests of the worker should be fulfilled, as well as of the employer. The aim of the paper is to point out that in this case, the consistent application of the principles of legitimacy, proportionality and transparency is crucial for balancing the conflicting interests of workers and employers.
Downloads
References
Blanpain, R. 1995. Employee privacy issues: Belgian report. Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 17, pp. 38-44.
Danilović, J. 2017. Pravo na privatnost zaposlenih. Anali pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 2, pp. 162-182.
Davidov, G. 2012. The principle of proportionality in labour law and its impact on precarious workers. Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 34, pp.63-80.
Ditertr, Ž. 2006. Izvodi znajznačajnijih odluka Evropskog suda za ljudska prava. Beograd: JP Službeni glasnik.
Gomien, D. 2007. Evropska konvencija o ljudskim pravima-priručnik. Zadar: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci.
Guerin, L. 2011. Employment law: The Essential HR Desk Reference. Berkeley: Nolo. International Labour Organisation. 1993. Conditions of work digest, Workers' privacy Part II: Monitoring and surveillance in the workplace, 12 (1). Geneva: International Labour Office.
International Labour Organisation. 1997. Protection of worker`s personal data, An ILO code of practice. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Kovačević, Lj. 2013. Pravna subordinacija u random odnosu njene granice. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Baogradu.
Krstić, I. 2006. Pravo na poštovanje privatnog i porodičnog života - član 8 Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima. Beograd: Beogradska inicijativa za ljudska prava.
Lubarda, B. 2012. Radno pravo – rasprava o dostojanstvu na radu i socijalnom dijalogu. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
Paunović, M., Krivokapić, B. & Krstić, I. 2013. Međunarodna ljudska prava. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Baogradu.
Palm, E. 2009. Privacy expectations at work—what is reasonable and why? Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, 12, pp. 201-215.
Ray, J.E & Rojot, J. 1995. Worker privacy in France. Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 17, pp. 61-74.
Reinhard, H.J. 2002. Information technology and workers' privacy: The German Law. Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 23, pp. 377-397.
Reljanović, M. 2020. Zaštita podataka o ličnosti u radnom odnos. U: Andović, S., Prlja, D. & Diligenski, A. (ur.), Zaštita podataka o ličnosti u Srbiji. Beograd: Institut za uporedno pravo, pp. 61-91.
Rid, K. 2007. Evropska konvencija o ljudskim pravima. Beograd: Beogradski centar za ljudska prava.
Stojković-Zlatanović, S. & Lazarević, B. 2017. Poverljivost podataka o ličnosti – implikacije na položaj zaposlenih sa stanovišta sudske prakse. Pravo i privreda, 4-6, pp. 702-714.
Vigneau, C. 2000a. Information technology and worker’s privacy: Regulatory techniques. Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 23, pp. 505-516.
Vigneau, C. 2000b. Information technology and workers’ privacy: a comparative study: Part II: Nacional studies: information technology and workers’ privacy: The French law. Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 23, pp. 351-375.
Stanković, O., Perović, S. & Trajković M. (ur.), 1978. Enciklopedija imovinskog prava i prava udruženog rada. Beograd: Službeni glasnik SFRJ.
Weiss, M. & Geck, B. 1995. Worker privacy in Germany. Comparative Labour Law & Policy Journal, 17, pp. 75-90.
Website references
Council of Europe. 2015. Internet: case-law of the European Court of Human Right. Strasbourg: ECHR/Research Divisions. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_internet_ENG.pdf, (15.11.2020).
Hendrickx, F. 2002. Protection of workers’ personal data in the European Union: general issues and sensitive data. University of Leuven, University of Tilburg. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/9971640/Protection_of_workers_personal_data_in_the_European_Union, (10.11.2020).
Legal sources and case law
Council of Europe. 1950. ETS No.005. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/005.
Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), Official Journal of the European Union, 2016/L119.
Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of ECHR, 9 October 1979. Series A no 32, (1979) 2 EHRR 305, [1979] ECHR 3.
Bărbulescu v. Romania, no. 61496/08, Judgment of ECHR, 5 September 2017. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-177082, (15. 5. 2020).
Botta v. Italy, no. 21439/93, Judgment of ECHR, 24 February 1998. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58140, (15. 5. 2020).
Copland v. The United Kingdom, no. 62617/00, Judgment of ECHR, 3 April 2007. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-79996, (15. 5. 2020).
Niemietz v. Germany, no. 13710/88/01, Judgment of ECHR, 16 December 1992. Available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57887, (15. 5. 2020).
Nikon case. Cour de Cassation, Chambre sociale, du 2 octobre 2001, 99-42.942.
Rees v. The United Kingdom, no. 9532/81, Judgment of ECHR, 17 October 1986, available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-57564, (15. 5. 2020).
Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pinto De Albuquerque, Bărbulescu v. Romania, no. 61496/08, Judgment of ECHR, 12 January 2016.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Foreign Legal Life

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Institute of Comparative Law

