2013/57 Covert surveillance to prove unlawful absence from work allowed (UK)

The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has decided that covert surveillance of an employee by a private detective did not breach the employee’s right of privacy. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), which governs the right to a private life, was not engaged, meaning that the employee’s dismissal based on the surveillance evidence was not unfair. Further, the employer’s ignorance of the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’), the UK’s transposition of EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EEC, and Information Commissioner’s Codes of Practice did not render the employer’s investigation unreasonable or the employee’s dismissal unfair.

2013/11 Notes intended solely for internal use excluded from scope of Data Protection Act (NL)

An employee who was involved in a dispute with her employer applied for an order of the court for access to all documents containing her personal data including correspondence exchanged between the legal department of her employer and line managers on the subject of the dispute. The courts declined to make the order.

2013/11 Notes intended solely for internal use excluded from scope of Data Protection Act (NL)

An employee who was involved in a dispute with her employer applied for an order of the court for access to all documents containing her personal data including correspondence exchanged between the legal department of her employer and line managers on the subject of the dispute. The courts declined to make the order.

EELC 2013/49 Employer may not subject employees to lie detector tests (HU)

An employee in a financial institution was suspected of fraud. He was asked to undergo a lie detector test (‘polygraph’). He agreed and consented in writing to the test. Four days after undergoing the test he was dismissed. He filed for unfair dismissal. Although the court dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, the employee was awarded damages for violation of his right to privacy. Subjecting an employee to a polygraph examination is an excessive and therefore unlawful method of gathering evidence in respect of which the employer bears the burden of proof.

<p>EELC 2013/49 Employer may not subject employees to lie detector tests (HU)</p>

An employee in a financial institution was suspected of fraud. He was asked to undergo a lie detector test (‘polygraph’). He agreed and consented in writing to the test. Four days after undergoing the test he was dismissed. He filed for unfair dismissal. Although the court dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, the employee was awarded damages for violation of his right to privacy. Subjecting an employee to a polygraph examination is an excessive and therefore unlawful method of gathering evidence in respect of which the employer bears the burden of proof.

2013/3 Pay discrimination claimants entitled to see colleagues’ contracts, pay slips, bonus awards, despite privacy objections (FR)

Employees who feel discriminated against in terms of remuneration can bring a claim before a summary trial judge – prior to any trial on the merits of the case - and obtain disclosure of the pay slips of other employees to whom they compare themselves.

2013/3 Pay discrimination claimants entitled to see colleagues&rsquo; contracts, pay slips, bonus awards, despite privacy objections (FR)

Employees who feel discriminated against in terms of remuneration can bring a claim before a summary trial judge – prior to any trial on the merits of the case - and obtain disclosure of the pay slips of other employees to whom they compare themselves.

2012/53 Refusal to take drug test is just cause for dismissal (MT)

The plaintiff in this case, Mr Marco Cassar, was employed by the co- operative association...

2012/53 Refusal to take drug test is just cause for dismissal (MT)

The plaintiff in this case, Mr Marco Cassar, was employed by the co- operative association...

2013/13 Article 8 ECHR does not prohibit an employer from accessing private employee emails (LU)

Secrecy of correspondence does not prevent an employer from accessing the content of a document sent by an employee from the company’s laptop even if the employee uses his private mailbox, when the file has not been identified as personal and the interests of the company justify it.