Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 0:32:50 GMT -5
Furthermore, the computer intervention was carried out by a specialized company, which later prepared the corresponding expert report , which was presented and validated in court.
Also in a case of unfair competition, monitoring a worker's email is declared lawful. The control of email accounts arose from the alerts and the well-founded and later confirmed fear that the worker could be transferring sensitive information material to an employee of a competing company and with whom her employees or external advisors had held negotiations. .
Access to the computer has scrupulously Fax Lists respected the guidelines established by the ECtHR in what is known as the Barbulescu II Doctrine and that the extinctive decision has been unrelated to the weak accusation of harassment formulated by the worker in reaction to an evaluation carried out by her hierarchical superior.
The worker had digitally signed the company's confidentiality policy, with an external company responsible for ensuring that it was signed and certifying it, such as those courses on the code of conduct and confidentiality policy in February 2020 and May 2021. Furthermore, at When connecting to the computer systems, a link appears that takes the worker to the privacy policy and warnings are generated every time external accounts outside the company are accessed.
Finally, the examination of the worker's email account (whose monitoring was lawful) has confirmed each of the messages detailed in the dismissal letter. For all these reasons, the dismissal claim filed by the worker is dismissed.
In short, monitoring email and/or the corporate computer is perfectly legal to collect evidence that justifies a sanction , up to disciplinary dismissal. Now, when fundamental rights come into play, the “Barbulescu test” must be scrupulously complied with .
In this sense, it is essential that there be a clear policy for the use of corporate media made available to workers and limit said use to professional purposes. Furthermore, it is not enough that such a policy exists. The company must prove, if applicable, that the workers were aware of said policy and its content. To do so, it is advisable to sign a contractual clause, whether included in the employment contract itself or in an annex to it.
Added to the above is that it is essential to previously and expressly inform workers that the company reserves the possibility of controlling and monitoring the use of email and/or the corporate computer (or other devices made available to employees as they can). be the corporate phone, a Tablet, etc.).
If monitoring is necessary, we must try to ensure that this monitoring is limited as much as possible to the objective that caused this monitoring and to limit the monitoring (scope thereof).
And finally, together with the above, be careful with the so-called “ business tolerance ”, that is, if for example in the company, although there is a policy of exclusive use for professional purposes, a certain personal use is being admitted, if the company then sanctions “surprisingly” the dismissal could be declared inadmissible.
Also in a case of unfair competition, monitoring a worker's email is declared lawful. The control of email accounts arose from the alerts and the well-founded and later confirmed fear that the worker could be transferring sensitive information material to an employee of a competing company and with whom her employees or external advisors had held negotiations. .
Access to the computer has scrupulously Fax Lists respected the guidelines established by the ECtHR in what is known as the Barbulescu II Doctrine and that the extinctive decision has been unrelated to the weak accusation of harassment formulated by the worker in reaction to an evaluation carried out by her hierarchical superior.
The worker had digitally signed the company's confidentiality policy, with an external company responsible for ensuring that it was signed and certifying it, such as those courses on the code of conduct and confidentiality policy in February 2020 and May 2021. Furthermore, at When connecting to the computer systems, a link appears that takes the worker to the privacy policy and warnings are generated every time external accounts outside the company are accessed.
Finally, the examination of the worker's email account (whose monitoring was lawful) has confirmed each of the messages detailed in the dismissal letter. For all these reasons, the dismissal claim filed by the worker is dismissed.
In short, monitoring email and/or the corporate computer is perfectly legal to collect evidence that justifies a sanction , up to disciplinary dismissal. Now, when fundamental rights come into play, the “Barbulescu test” must be scrupulously complied with .
In this sense, it is essential that there be a clear policy for the use of corporate media made available to workers and limit said use to professional purposes. Furthermore, it is not enough that such a policy exists. The company must prove, if applicable, that the workers were aware of said policy and its content. To do so, it is advisable to sign a contractual clause, whether included in the employment contract itself or in an annex to it.
Added to the above is that it is essential to previously and expressly inform workers that the company reserves the possibility of controlling and monitoring the use of email and/or the corporate computer (or other devices made available to employees as they can). be the corporate phone, a Tablet, etc.).
If monitoring is necessary, we must try to ensure that this monitoring is limited as much as possible to the objective that caused this monitoring and to limit the monitoring (scope thereof).
And finally, together with the above, be careful with the so-called “ business tolerance ”, that is, if for example in the company, although there is a policy of exclusive use for professional purposes, a certain personal use is being admitted, if the company then sanctions “surprisingly” the dismissal could be declared inadmissible.