HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Employers need to take a ‘proportionate approach’ to monitoring their staff.

Last year, significant publicity was given to a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision whereby the rejection of a claim was widely described as a charter for employers to snoop on their employees at work.

• Also in Business New tax offence to be made within Criminal Finances Act 2017

Following an appeal, however, a claim by Mr Barbulescu that his right to privacy at work had been violated has been upheld.

The case concerned a Romanian engineer whose employer asked him to set up a Yahoo messenger account. The employer laid down very strict rules against any personal use.

The company monitored Mr Barbulescu’s account and accused him of using it for personal reasons. The defendant disputed this but was then presented with evidence that he made extensive use of it to discuss aspects of his sex life and health with two of his contacts, namely his fiancée and brother. Mr Barbulescu was subsequently dismissed and he brought claims against his employer.

The Grand Chamber of the Court has now decided that Mr Barbulescu’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention was breached. The key part of the decision was that an employee’s private life at work cannot be reduced to “zero”.

The national courts had not taken account of relevant issues including whether Mr Barbulescu had received prior notice of monitoring or considered its nature and extent. Nor had they determined legitimate reasons justifying the monitoring or considered less intrusive measures. They had accordingly failed to strike the right balance between the employer’s rights to impose discipline and the employee’s right to privacy.

The case highlights the degree of necessity that employers should take when monitoring employees. Whilst that should amount to a proportionate approach, the decision of the Grand Chamber will have limited impact in the UK. This is because legislation and guidance already sets out the parameters of legitimate monitoring by employers.

But there is an overlap. UK workers may be becoming concerned about domestic developments. The EU withdrawal bill, while purporting to preserve all workers’ rights enjoyed by virtue of EU law, controversially excludes the Charter of Fundamental Rights which enshrines in EU law both respect for private and family life and protection of personal data.

While the British Government appear to have sidelined its plans to withdraw the UK from the Convention on Human Rights and from the jurisdiction of the Court which presided in the Barbulescu case, there are indications that these important issues may be revisited after we leave the EU.

Although existing safeguards will continue to apply and be strengthened through implementation of the European General Data Protection Regulation next year, these developments mean, despite UK parliamentary assurances, workers’ rights in the UK look like they are about to be subject (once again) to significant uncertainty.