| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font
First page > Show document

Show document

Title:Meje dopustnega nadzora delavca z in pri uporabi sredstev informacijsko komunikacijske tehnologije na delovnem mestu: izbrani vidiki : izbrani vidiki
Authors:Polajžar, Aljoša (Author)
Senčur Peček, Darja (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Weingerl, Petra (Co-mentor)
Files:.pdf MAG_Polajzar_Aljosa_2020.pdf (1,30 MB)
MD5: C25D8D20CC9AAC161AD3AE34450AADED
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper (mb22)
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Razvoj informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije (IKT) je prinesel nove možnosti nadzora nad delavcem. Delodajalec ima kot organizator delovnega procesa in lastnik delovnih sredstev interes, da se njegova sredstva IKT uporabljajo v službene namene. Ker obstaja možnost, da delavec uporablja službeni računalnik, internet, e-pošto ipd. v zasebne namene, je v interesu delodajalca, da spremlja delavčevo uporabo teh sredstev. Pri tem je problematično iskanje pravnih meja dopustnega nadzora. Primeri in pogoji v katerih se tovrstni nadzor lahko uvede niso konkretneje zakonsko urejeni. Meje dopustnega nadzora začrtuje tehtanje neposredno učinkujočih temeljnih pravic delavca in legitimnih interesov delodajalca s pomočjo metode praktične konkordance. Nadzor predstavlja poseg v (komunikacijsko, informacijsko) zasebnost in varstvo osebnih podatkov delavca. Predmetne temeljne pravice so varovane v okviru različnih sistemov varstva temeljnih pravic (URS, Listine EU, EKČP). V okviru prava EU meje dopustnega nadzora začrtuje Splošna uredba o varstvu osebnih podatkov (GDPR), ki jo je treba razlagati v luči Listine EU. Tudi iz smernic Delovne skupine 29 izhaja, da se nadzor lahko izvaja le ob upoštevanju temeljnih načel GDPR, in sicer transparentnosti, sorazmernosti in zakonitosti obdelave. Zaradi delavčevega položaja kot šibkejše stranke v delovnem razmerju pa njegova privolitev praviloma ne bo mogla služiti kot podlaga za izvajanje nadzora. Iz sodne prakse ESČP izhaja, da je za določanje meja dopustnega nadzora bistvena presoja, ali je delavec pri uporabi sredstev IKT lahko utemeljeno pričakoval zasebnost in ali je imel delodajalec zadostno utemeljene interese za izvajanje nadzora. Tudi iz analize slovenske sodne prakse in smernic Informacijskega pooblaščenca izhaja, da je nadzor dopusten le v izjemnih primerih, v katerih delavec ni mogel utemeljeno pričakovati zasebnosti in ko prevladajo interesi delodajalca. Nadzor naj se izvaja le kot ultima ratio. V zvezi s sprejemom specialnih zakonskih pravil GDPR izrecno navaja možnost, da se nadzor na delovnem mestu uredi s specialnimi zakonskimi pravili ali z dvostranskimi avtonomnimi pravili. Ugotavljamo, da bi se v okviru slovenskega pravnega sistema pogoji, razlogi oz. meje dopustnega nadzora nad delavcem z in pri uporabi sredstev IKT lahko uredile predvsem s kolektivnimi pogodbami (na različnih ravneh). S splošnimi akti pa bi bilo primerno, da bi delodajalci določili podrobnejša organizacijska pravila, s katerimi se konkretizirajo obveznosti delavcev in določijo meje dopustne uporabe službene IKT opreme v zasebne namene. Nadalje, ugotavljamo, da bi bilo meje dopustnega nadzora primerno urediti tudi z zakonskimi pravili. V določeni meri bi se lahko zgledovali po finski in nemški ureditvi. Pri tem se zavzemamo za sprejem ureditve skladne z URS in pravom EU, ki ne bi bila nujno podrobna. Korak v pravo smer bi bila že uvedba ustreznih »postopkovnih« varovalk (npr. obveznega sodelovanja delavskih predstavnikov), s katerimi bi preprečili, da bi do neutemeljenega izvajanja nadzora oz. posega v pravico do zasebnosti delavca sploh prišlo.
Keywords:Delovno razmerje, temeljne pravice, nadzor na delovnem mestu, informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije (IKT), zasebnost delavca, varstvo osebnih podatkov, Informacijski pooblaščenec, komunikacijska zasebnost, Uredba 2016/679 (GDPR), Barbulescu proti Romuniji.
Year of publishing:2020
Place of performance:[Maribor
Publisher:A. Polajžar]
Number of pages:IX, 92 str.
Source:Maribor
UDC:349.2:004(043.3)
COBISS_ID:22569475 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:2THOI4RC
Views:520
Downloads:252
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:AddThis
AddThis uses cookies that require your consent. Edit consent...

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Licences

License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Link:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:09.07.2020

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:The limits of permissible surveillance of workers (with the) use of information and communications technology at the workplace: selected aspects
Abstract:The development of information and communications technology (ICT) has brought new possibilities for workplace surveillance. As an organizer of the working process and the owner of the working equipment, the employer has the interest that his ICT equipment is used for work-related purposes. Due to the possibility that a working computer, internet, e-mail, etc. are used for private purposes, the employer has the interest to monitor the employee’s use of the ICT equipment. The problem is to determine the legal limits of admissible workplace monitoring. The cases and conditions under which this kind of surveillance is permissible are not specifically denoted in the law. The limits of permissible workplace surveillance are delineated by weighing the directly applicable fundamental rights of the employee and employer’s legitimate interests via the method of practical concordance. Workplace monitoring is an interference into employee’s rights to protection of (communications, information) privacy, and personal data. The fundamental rights in question are protected within the framework of the Slovenian Constitution, the EU Charter, and the ECHR. Under EU law, the limits of permissible surveillance are delineated by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which must be interpreted in light of the EU Charter. It also follows from the guidelines of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party that monitoring can only be carried out in compliance with the principles of the GDPR, namely transparency, proportionality, and lawfulness of the processing. Due to the employee's position as a weaker party in an employment relationship, his consent will in general not be an appropriate legal basis for the surveillance. It follows from ECtHR case law that in order to determine the limits of permissible surveillance, it is essential to assess whether the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in connection to the use of the work-related ICT equipment, and whether the employer had sufficiently substantiated interests to exercise the surveillance. The analysis of the Slovenian case law and the guidelines of the Information Commissioner also shows that workplace monitoring is permissible only in exceptional cases in which the employee could not reasonably expect privacy and when the interests of the employer prevail. Conducting workplace monitoring should be ultima ratio. Regarding the enaction of special statutory rules, the GDPR contains the possibility to regulate workplace monitoring with special statutory rules or with bilateral autonomous rules. Within the Slovenian legal system, the conditions, reasons, and the limits of permissible surveillance may be regulated by collective agreements (on different levels). Moreover, it would be appropriate that employers would lay down detailed organizational rules in general acts - specifying the obligations of employees and setting the limits of permissible use of the ICT equipment for private purposes. Furthermore, we conclude that it would be appropriate to regulate the limits of permissible surveillance also with statutory rules. To some extent, we could adopt solutions from the Finnish and German statutory framework. We are advocating for the enaction of statutory rules which are not necessarily detailed but in line with the Slovenian Constitution and EU law. A step in the right direction would be the adoption of appropriate "procedural" safeguards (for example, the obligatory participation of workers’ representatives), which would prevent unjustified monitoring and intrusion into an employee’s privacy in the first place.
Keywords:Employment relationship, fundamental rights, workplace monitoring, information and communications technology (ICT), employee privacy, personal data protection, Information Commissioner, privacy of communications, Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR), Barbulescu v. Romania.


Comments

Leave comment

You have to log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica