|
|
The need to adapt the job market to the restrictions imposed by the coronavirus pandemic has led many people to start working from home or teleworking. With this trend, many companies have adopted certain tools that allow some control over the activities of employees who are away from the watchful eyes of their supervisors. There are tools available that can produce reports containing the tasks performed throughout the workday, such as the number of emails sent, the time spent on a certain page or document, or even the total time spent in front of the computer, among other statistics. The means of obtaining information about employee activity may consist of sporadic screen captures, monitoring the number of clicks and keystrokes, and viewing the websites and applications accessed. It's the "corporate BBB". There is a great debate about the possibility of this type of monitoring and its limits. On the one hand, there is recognition of the employer's interest that the home office is not used as a way to escape work and that, if the device to be monitored is made available by the company itself, it should only be used for functional purposes; on the other hand, there is the privacy of this employee and the understanding that work productivity is not guaranteed by the total prohibition of distraction breaks.
In addition to possible legal Greece Phone Number discussions concerning labor law, the General Data Protection Law (LGPD) also enters the debate, and its principles may not result in the preponderance of one interest to the detriment of the other (company interest x employee privacy) , but an equilibrium solution. This is because the LGPD provides that data processing activities (such as monitoring employee activities) must have a specific, lawful and legitimate purpose, and the means to achieve them must be necessary and appropriate for that purpose. Therefore, even if the control of employees' activities is recognized as lawful from the perspective of the company, which would have a legitimate interest in doing so, it is still necessary to reflect on whether the way of achieving this purpose is the most appropriate, considering that it is also necessary to protect employee privacy as well as their dignity. So, for example, if the objective is to avoid the possibility of a person being distracted by social networks or certain websites that could compromise network security, it would be much more appropriate for the implemented tool to prevent access and connection to certain websites beforehand.
-selected than capturing the screen at each time interval or issuing a report with the addresses accessed and the content viewed there. It is a less invasive solution to this user's privacy, and the objective achieved is the same. This type of reflection is essential for companies, who must take note that there are different means to achieve the same purpose that involves personal data, and it is also an obligation and legal responsibility of employers to seek means that are more appropriate and less invasive. user privacy, even if the purpose is legitimate.In the two cases brought to light, mentioned above, it was noted that the surprise decisions made by the judges could cause irreparable damage not only to the companies involved, but to an entire economic category. In both cases, the patrons' control over the urgent protection aimed at granting a suspensive effect to ordinary appeals was also verified, despite the celetarian legislation, in its article , recommending that said appeal will only be received with a devolutive effect. However, Labor Procedural Law can rely on Civil Procedural Law in matters where it is omitted, in accordance with article of the CLT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 2024-3-12 15:21:47
