To access the information contained in emails that the employer provides the worker, for the development of their work is necessary to have standing data for such treatment, and Article 6.1 of the Organic Law on Data Protection provides that "The treatment of personal data require the consent of the affected party, unless the law provides otherwise."
However, the English Agency for Data Protection has stated regarding the processing of data for the workers, when it is done in the field of employment, it should be noted that Article 6.2 of the Organic Law on Data Protection except the obligation to seek the consent of those affected in cases in which personal data "relating to the parties to a contract or preliminary to a business, or administrative work needed for maintenance and compliance."
The Agency ruled that Article 20.3 of the Workers' Statute enables the employer to monitor e-mail that it grants to its employees for the exclusive development of their functions, but always have previously reported that point and comply with the duty of information under Article 5.1 of the Data Protection Act.
could not any room for doubt that for any e-mail access to workers must be provided prior information respect, which should also include where the principle of informed consent of affected developed in Article 5 and 6 of the Data Protection Act.
For its part, the Supreme Court has also determined that access by the employer to an employee's computer can be neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The employer must have evidence or reasonable suspicion of misconduct. And it can not be allowed to do it less intrusive. Experts recommend that companies covenant or inform their employees of their "policies of use of information technology" and its "privacy policy" and drawing attention to control activities which, at times, it is recommended the presence of a legal representative of workers.
And he said that there was no room for doubt, until the Court of Madrid has a car by a company to read the emails of an employee without his consent and without having agreed to before a privacy policy.
The Madrid Provincial Court has held that an employer can freely access the e-mail communications that a worker has had with the computer provided by the company, without notice and without the knowledge of the employee, and even if the employer has not prohibited personal use of the computer and there is no policy to control computers.
self-esteem in the interests Company prevail. The worker sent, as discussed in another lawsuit, e-mails with confidential business information to compete unfairly with them.
The reporting judge, Carlos Ollero, is based on "the computer runs the provision of work and, consequently, the employer can check on it its proper functioning." Thus, exempt the employer and several commanders of the commission of an offense under Article 197 of the Penal Code, for violating the fundamental rights to privacy of communications and privacy.
Unlike the box office and personal effects, whose privacy protects the Status of Workers self understood that "the computer is an instrument of production which is owned by the entrepreneur, and this has, therefore, control power use, including its review."
The company claimed that the alleged violation of the privacy of the worker was not an arbitrary or capricious, but was carried out for further supporting evidence in an action for unfair competition because the employee was sending confidential company information to an e-mail with the alleged purpose of competing in the future with her. The company used the information obtained through e-mails to sue the employee, lawsuit was filed.
Medical Writing Posted in the Thursday, February 15, 2011. Year 1397 Number VII.
However, the English Agency for Data Protection has stated regarding the processing of data for the workers, when it is done in the field of employment, it should be noted that Article 6.2 of the Organic Law on Data Protection except the obligation to seek the consent of those affected in cases in which personal data "relating to the parties to a contract or preliminary to a business, or administrative work needed for maintenance and compliance." The Agency ruled that Article 20.3 of the Workers' Statute enables the employer to monitor e-mail that it grants to its employees for the exclusive development of their functions, but always have previously reported that point and comply with the duty of information under Article 5.1 of the Data Protection Act.
could not any room for doubt that for any e-mail access to workers must be provided prior information respect, which should also include where the principle of informed consent of affected developed in Article 5 and 6 of the Data Protection Act.
For its part, the Supreme Court has also determined that access by the employer to an employee's computer can be neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The employer must have evidence or reasonable suspicion of misconduct. And it can not be allowed to do it less intrusive. Experts recommend that companies covenant or inform their employees of their "policies of use of information technology" and its "privacy policy" and drawing attention to control activities which, at times, it is recommended the presence of a legal representative of workers.
And he said that there was no room for doubt, until the Court of Madrid has a car by a company to read the emails of an employee without his consent and without having agreed to before a privacy policy.
The Madrid Provincial Court has held that an employer can freely access the e-mail communications that a worker has had with the computer provided by the company, without notice and without the knowledge of the employee, and even if the employer has not prohibited personal use of the computer and there is no policy to control computers.
self-esteem in the interests Company prevail. The worker sent, as discussed in another lawsuit, e-mails with confidential business information to compete unfairly with them.
The reporting judge, Carlos Ollero, is based on "the computer runs the provision of work and, consequently, the employer can check on it its proper functioning." Thus, exempt the employer and several commanders of the commission of an offense under Article 197 of the Penal Code, for violating the fundamental rights to privacy of communications and privacy.
Unlike the box office and personal effects, whose privacy protects the Status of Workers self understood that "the computer is an instrument of production which is owned by the entrepreneur, and this has, therefore, control power use, including its review."
The company claimed that the alleged violation of the privacy of the worker was not an arbitrary or capricious, but was carried out for further supporting evidence in an action for unfair competition because the employee was sending confidential company information to an e-mail with the alleged purpose of competing in the future with her. The company used the information obtained through e-mails to sue the employee, lawsuit was filed.
Medical Writing Posted in the Thursday, February 15, 2011. Year 1397 Number VII.
0 comments:
Post a Comment