The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published its final guidance on monitoring workers on 3 October 2023 (the Guidance). The Guidance is aimed at employers across both the private and public sector. Responding to the rise of remote working and new technologies available to monitor employees, the ICO has looked to provide clear direction on
A ”bring your own device” (BYOD) program is a popular arrangement used by employers, whereby employees use their personal devices (e.g., smartphones, laptops, or tablets) for both personal and business purposes. Last year, about two-thirds of Canadian private sector employers had at least one employee using personal devices for business-related activities. [1]
While
On October 31, 2022 the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board released a memo urging the Board to adopt a “new framework” for protecting employees from “intrusive or abusive” forms of electronic monitoring and automated management technologies that interfere with employee rights to self-organize and to engage in collective bargaining under Section 7
A new law, which amends the New York Civil Rights Law, will require New York employers to provide notice before monitoring employee electronic communications. The amendment takes effect on May 7, 2022.
The new law requires that New York employers fulfill three requirements before electronically monitoring
The French employment Code defines sexual harassment as “repeated sexual comments or conduct that either violate the [employee’s] dignity because of their degrading or humiliating nature or create an intimidating, hostile or offensive situation against the employee“.
The French employment Code also assimilates to sexual harassment “any form of serious pressure, even
Dans une décision majoritaire rendue le 3 octobre 2019[1], la Cour d’appel traite de l’admissibilité en preuve d’une vidéo de filature obtenue en dehors du milieu de travail en vertu de l’article 2858 C.c.Q.
La majorité des juges concluent que l’employeur était justifié de procéder à une filature suite aux recommandations de son
The everyday use of biometric technology in contemporary society is nothing new.
We live in a world where we regularly use fingerprint recognition for home security, facial recognition to open our phones and voice recognition to ask Siri to spice up a party by playing the latest Taylor Swift tune. Despite the significant advancements and prevalence of biometric technology in everyday society, the legality of the use of biometric fingerprint technology in the workplace has been given a thumbs down in a recent case.
A recent Fair Work Commission Full Bench decision has shed light on the obligations and risks associated with the use of biometric technology by employers. In the first Full Bench decision considering an employee’s refusal to provide biometric data through fingerprint scanning, it was held in Jeremy Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd t/a Superior Wood [2019] FWCFB 2946 (1 May 2019) that directing an employee to provide fingerprint data, in circumstances where the employee did not consent to that collection, was not lawful.
The decision is important for employers to consider as it raises questions around data collection, data policies, the storage of data and whether the refusal to provide sensitive information is a valid reason for dismissal.
Le règlement général sur la protection des données (« RGPD ») est entré en vigueur le 25 mai 2018. Il modifie la législation antérieure sur le traitement des données personnelles en supprimant notamment le principe de déclaration préalable à la CNIL. Cette déclaration est remplacée par une obligation pour l’entreprise de démontrer la conformité de
You cannot fail to have noticed that the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679)) came into force today. The Data Protection Act 2018 received Royal Assent on 23 May and ensures that the standards set out in the (GDPR) have effect in the UK.
The GDPR affects the processing of employment data – but
Technology is ever-changing, and while in the past evidence of an employee’s misconduct was based mainly on “physical” witnesses and observations, employers might now be tempted to use data obtained through social media as evidence against their employees.
At the present time the French Supreme Court has not had many occasions to clarify the manner in which evidence obtained by French employers through the Facebook website (and more particularly on the “wall” of an individual) should be treated by the courts.