Page 321 [321]
OCR
DIGNITY AT THE WORKPLACE. WHAT IS PROTECTED AND WHO HAS TO PROTECT IT? of the relation between the employers and employees under the new technological conditions. Two key judgements are to be mentioned here. One of them, Bärbulescu v. Romania *’ relates to the right of the employer to collect data on the employees internet activities, the other one, López Ribalda and Others v. Spain? to surveillance through CCTV cameras. In the Bárbulescu case a sales engineer at a private company, was asked to open a Yahoo Messenger account for professional purposes. The employer prohibited the private use of its equipments and warned everyone that communications might be monitored. The engineer nevertheless used it for private communications. The employer presented him the 45-page transcript of the recorded internet communications, some of them of intimate nature and finally he was dismissed. In the Ribalda case the employer supermarket installed CCTV cameras (visible and hidden) to monitor the activity and conduct of the supermarket employees, not informing them on the hidden cameras, leading to the dismissal of the employees who were involved in stealing. Two issues, addressed in both cases, are relevant for our subject. First, the role of the State in these cases between private parties. The Court established, as an obligation of State authorities to strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the parties (the respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention and the employer’s interest in the protection of its rights to its property and to supervise the operation of its business. When national authorities failed to fulfil this balancing obligation the violation of Article 8 of the Convention was found.” Another principal matter was in both cases the lack of correct notification in advance by the employer on the surveillance. The detailed arguments expressed in the cases underlined the increased importance of attentiveness under the growing influence of surveillance technology to the use of personal data and information on personal matters. In the Barbulescu case the Court attributed great significance to the fact whether the employee was notified in advance of the monitoring and its nature, particularly that not only the use of internet but also the contents of the private communications were monitored. Accessing the contents of the private communications without notification impinged upon the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The remarkable judgement raised concern at this point: it implies that the notification eliminates or radically reduces the privacy of the employee, if he knows that he is watched, may not have expectations on privacy. 27 E.Ct.H.R. (GC) 5 September 2017 (Appl. No. 61496/08). 28 E.Ct.HR. (3“ sect.) 9 January 2018 (Appl. Nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13). 29 §§140—141. «319 +
