News
Employee monitoring under the Romanian law implementing GDPR
On 27 June 2018, the Romanian Parliament finally approved the Romanian law intending to cover the open clauses under the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"). The new law ("GDPR Implementing Law") is not yet in force; at the date of this article (4 July 2018) it still lacks ratification from the Romanian President and publication with the Romanian Official Gazette.
The initial draft of the GDPR Implementing Law raised numerous debates and disputes, two different projects being proposed more or less simultaneously and by more or less the same initiators, some provisions being intensively criticized by the business environment, such as the total prohibition of the private sector in processing biometric, genetic and health data for profiling and other automatic processing, even while having the consent of the data subject. During the process, the text incorporated several amendments that partially balanced the positions of the processing actors.
The GDPR Implementing Law covers a limited number of areas, mainly it: (i) implements special rules concerning the processing of certain categories of sensitive data (biometric data, genetic data, data concerning health), (ii) introduces derogatory rules in relation to other categories of data (e.g. personal identification number, employee data), (iii) regulates the licensing of certification bodies, (iv) implements rules regarding the sanctioning of the public sector for GDPR breaches and (v) approves transitional provisions.
This brief deals only with the rules brought by the GDPR Implementing Law in the area of employment law, specifically when monitoring the employees via electronic communications and/or video surveillance.
In the light of the Barbulescu case (decision dated 5 September 2017 of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Barbulescu v. Romania), but also of the latest Article 29 Data Protection Working Party Opinion on the matter (Opinion 2/2017 dated 8 June 2017on data processing at work), Romania decided to take the benefit of the open clause in art. 88 of the GDPR, which provides that "Member States may, by law or by collective agreements, provide for more specific rules to ensure protection of the rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of employees’ personal data in the employment context [..]. Those rules shall include suitable and specific measures to safeguard the data subject’s human dignity, legitimate interests and fundamental rights, with particular regard to the transparency of processing, [..] and monitoring systems of the workplace."
Specifically, the GDPR Implementing Law adds certain safeguards against an employer's abuse, by providing a number of pre-requisites to the monitoring of the employees via electronic communications and/or video surveillance. These pre-conditions are cumulative and, needles to say, must be thoroughly documented.
Under the GDPR Implementing Law, in order to monitor the employees legally, the employer must:
- inform the employees (obviously, in advance) on the monitoring/surveillance, completely and explicitly;
- document that its legitimate interests are solidly grounded and prevail over the interests, on one hand, or the rights and freedoms, on the other hand, of the data subjects;
- consult the trade union or the representatives of the employees [according to the Romanian rules, consultation does not imply a consent of the employee representation bodies];
- document the subsidiarity of the intended monitoring, respectively that other less intrusive measures have failed, have not proved to be efficient (which implies that such less intrusive measures have been actually applied and not only analyzed/considered).
As concerns the duration of the data storage, such duration must be proportional with the purpose of the processing, but in any event, not longer than 30 days, except for cases expressly provided in the law or other solidly grounded situations. Highly unlikely that any compliance or disciplinary issue will be finalized in 30 days; therefore, again employers will need to document the need to keep the data for longer periods.
At Romanian level, the court argumentation in Barbulescu case and the recommendations of Article 29 Data Protection Working Party are now therefore transposed to a certain extent into the national legislation by way of law. Further on, all three sources of law and guidance must be considered in aggregate when implementing employee monitoring systems, which certainly complicates the process for employers.
Even more than before, the specific circumstances and factual elements (e.g. the specific aim of a strict monitoring, the degree of the intrusion - flow vs. content, the seriousness of the consequences for the employees) will need to be carefully considered when balancing the interests at stake and a perfect documentation of the case becomes also of outmost importance.
The employee monitoring was, is and remains a hot, subjective and unsettled issue.
Article provided by: Adelina Iftime-Blagean (Wolf Theiss)
Discover more about the Cloud Privacy Check(CPC) / Data Privacy Compliance(DPC) project
Director CPC project: Dr. Tobias Höllwarth, tobias.hoellwarth@eurocloud.org
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010