Whether employer installing monitoring system in electronic workplace does not violate employee as individual right to privacy?

Lietuvai dar būnant Sovietų sąjungos sudėtyje nei gyventojai nei darbuotojai negalėjo tikėtis, kad nebus pažeista teisė į privatumą, ypač žinant apie tuo metų veikusią KGB tarnyba, kuri nuolat ir slaptai galėjo rinkti ir kaupti įvairius duomenis apie asmenis gyvenančius tiek Lietuvos Respublikoje tiek ir visoje sąjungoje. Lietuvai tapus nepriklausoma valstybe, bėgant laikui ir tobulėjant informacinėms technologijoms žmonės ėmė rūpintis savo saugumu ir teise į privatumą. Iš esmės atrodytų, kad įtvirtinta Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijoje teisė į privatų gyvenimą ir jo neliečiamumą turėtų būti pakankamas pagrindas asmeniui ginti savo teisę. Laikantis bendrųjų Europos sąjungos reikalavimų, Lietuvos įstatymų leidėjas priėmė papildomus įstatymus, kuriais buvo įgyvendintos pagrindinės direktyvų nuostatos asmens duomenų apsaugai užtikrinti. Šiame darbe nagrinėjama asmens teisė į privatumą darbo santykių kontekste, kuomet darbo vietą yra elektroninė darbo vieta, o tokioje darbo vietoje darbdavys įrengia stebėjimo sistema. Keliamas klausimas ar nėra pažeidžiama darbuotojo kaip asmens teisė į privatų gyvenimą vykdant elektroninės darbo vietos stebėjimą. Analizuojama asmens teisės į privatumą apimtis ir teisės apimtis darbo santykių kontekste. Sugretinamos ir palyginamos šios teisės apimtys. Apžvelgiamas ir analizuojamas asmens duomenų tvarkymas teisės aktų kontekstu. Analizuojama elektroninė darbo vieta. Elektroninės darbo vietos sudėtis bei reglamentavimas. Apžvelgiamas ir analizuojamas teisės aktų ir teismų praktikos kontekstu elektroninės darbo vietos stebėjimas ir stebėjimo priemonių rūšys bei jų panaudojimas. Apžvelgiama ir analizuojama asmens duomenų apsaugą reglamentuojantys teisės aktai, aiškinamasi kaip ir kokie duomenų valdytojai gali ir privalo saugoti asmens duomenis, kokių priemonių privalo imtis ir kaip turi organizuoti apsaugą. Darbo eigoje nustatyta, kad priklausomai nuo elektroninei darbo vietai stebėti naudojamų priemonių skiriasi ir priemonių naudojimo ir duomenų subjektų informavimo reglamentavimas.Since Lithuania has been a part the Soviet Union, employees and citizens couldn’t even hope for their right for privacy not to be violated, especially due to KGB2 service, that could permanently and secretly collect and store various data on Lithuania’s and the Union residents. After Lithuania‘s independence with a gradual development of informational technologies citizens started to care of their safety and rights for privacy. From the first sight, it seems that a right for a private life and its protection that is ensured by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania could be a sufficient base for a person to protect his/her rights. In order to meet general requirements of the EU, Lithuania‘s legislative bodies have adopted additional laws on implementation of key regulations to ensure protection of personal data. Relevancy. This theme is relevant because of lack of the issue analysis in Lithuania. From the legislative point of view a legislative body hasn’t regulated application of informational technologies for monitoring of a workplace. As there is no clear regulation, the practical application of informational technologies for an e-monitoring of a workplace causes a problem. A conflict between legal interests of an employer and an employee’s right for a protection of his/her private life appears. Despite the fact a person’s right for a private life has been imposed not only by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, but also the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, also the EU Council’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, no of the mentioned sources regulates a right for a private life at a workplace specially. An analysis of a right for a private life at a workplace specially imposes a question on a margin between a legal interests of an employer and an employee’s right for a protection of his/her private life. Topic. Privacy is a very important concept for a person to the extent of his/her or family interests. As an employer learns rather large amount of personal data in general, a system of a workplace monitoring could provide additional possibilities to collect data on a person and his/her family life. Technical opportunities of informational technologies could allow an employer to collect and store even more data on a person, exceeding a normal limit in order to gain necessary aims. That fact would contradict a principle of proportionality; also violate personal right for privacy. Hypothesis: Legislation of the Republic of Lithuania provides a sufficient protection of employee‘s personal right for private life at a workplace and imposes no conditions for an employer to violate this right. Objectives: 1. To analyze legislation on a personal right for private life at a workplace; 2. to identify capacity of a personal right for private life; 3. to identify capacity of a personal right for private life in terms of labour relations; 4. to analyze legislation on a personal data arrangement; 5. to clarify a structure and regulation of an e-workplace; 6. to analyze monitoring and its regulation of an e-workplace; 7. to overview legislation on a personal data protection. Research limits. The Research presents an analysis of a personal right for private life at a workplace, arranging personal data, monitoring of an e-workplace and ensuring the protection of collected data. Research methods: comparative analysis and descriptive analytical method. Brief generalized conclusions. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania has been clarifying a concept of a workplace and distinguished two meanings of the mentioned concept: 1) a place where working activity is performed, and 2) working unit – staff.3 However, there was no reference to an e-workplace, so an analysis imposed a conclusion that an e-workplace is an ordinary workplace with a special work tools – informational technologies, for example, a computer, Internet access, a tablet computer, etc. A person’s right for a private life is not an absolute one and could be limited, as laid down in legislation. This position has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania when interpreting the Constitution to the extent that limitation of a person’s right in case of a necessity do not deny an origin of person’s rights and freedoms. Privacy of a person in terms of labour relations always goes together with a person. According to the practice of the EU Court of Human Rights, person’s privacy is an integral part of person’s private life. As person’s privacy contains even such elements as personal communication, starting new contacts, interpersonal communication and communication with the external world, a person has a right on personal privacy in a workplace, because it is an integral part of person’s private life. 4. Analysis of the legislation, also judicial practice, statistical data, software and monitoring of an e-workplace has imposed a conclusion that application of different tools for monitoring of an e-workplace and storing/managing the personal data requires different rules on personal data arrangement. Secret arrangement of personal data has been strictly forbidden, except cases laid down in legislation, when data is managed by appropriate institutions for the preventive purposes. In the rest cases a data subject must know who, why and for what reason manages his/her personal data and, moreover, has a right to study the arranged data. Pursuant to a nature and a purpose of a technical tool, in some cases it is sufficient to inform a person in written on monitoring of his/her workplace. However, there are cases when such a notification can not be appropriate, as a person has to give a confirmation. A legislative body hasn’t regulated the tools and time for an employer to monitor an e-workplace that is why a lack of regulation could provoke a conflict between legal interests when employee’s right for a protection of his/her private life could be violated. In order to ensure an appropriate protection of employee’s personal data, data owner has to use all technical and technology measures to protect managed data from its possible illegal use or revealing. One of the major threat for a data owner in terms of data protection are data managers, i.e. natural persons who could reveal personal data being inactive due to human factor or error. The main conclusion is that a margin of parties of the Labour Contract between a legal expectation of an employer and a right for privacy of an employee is very negligible in terms of monitoring of an e-workplace. The margin could be violated insensibly, especially using any software, offered in the market. In case an employer and an employee do not discuss an issue of monitoring of an e-workplace, also using the provided work tools for the personal needs, a conflict of interest could appear with possible illegal intervention into employee’s private life that is duly protected by the legislation.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta