Employer's Disciplinary Power vs Employee's Private Life
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Employer's disciplinary power, private life of employee, labor law, employment contract, new technologies, control power, disciplinary sanctions, right to intimacy, Labour Code, labour courts, dismissal, teleworking, individual freedoms, fundamental rights, power of control, surveillance, social networks, personal data, Article L1121-1 Labour Code, Court of Cassation, secrecy of correspondence, contractual obligations, loyalty, sincerity, repressive powers, comparative law studies, regulation of new technologies, employee's rights, privacy protection, workplace monitoring, judicial guarantees, abusive sanctions, breach of contract, employment law, employee freedoms, employer-employee relationship, private life protection, labor legislation, technological advancements, work-life balance, disciplinary procedures, employee privacy, employer control, labor rights, privacy rights
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
This document explores the balance between an employer's disciplinary power and an employee's right to private life, discussing the impact of new technologies and labor law regulations.
Extract
[...] To address these problems, it is advisable to conduct a review of the current legal norms and study their evolution as well as that of the case law. In addition, it is essential to be interested in the reception of doctrinal rules and jurisprudential to study the next evolutions and establish the criticisms of existing norms. Finally, it is necessary to conduct comparative law studies in the field of labor law to find solutions to better reconcile the private life of the employee and the disciplinary power of his employer. [...]
[...] In fact, the employer could use their disciplinary power to sanction an employee for personal reasons that are unrelated to their work as such. In addition, the employee may also breach certain of their obligations in the context of a dispute with their employer by invoking their right to proof. Thus, the right to respect for private life implies the respect of individual freedoms and fundamental rights of the employee in the exercise of the employer's repressive powers. The respect of private life facing the powers of the employer raises questions about the regulation of new technologies and especially social networks used in a private context. [...]
[...] If private life differs quite easily from public life, this is not the case with professional life. Thus, the employee should not be able to be sanctioned for facts committed within the framework of their private life by principle, except when their behavior has concrete impacts on the company. On the other hand, the employer must be able to control the employee's work without being intrusive in their private life. Therefore, labor law must ensure that the employer's disciplinary power is not used for improper purposes. [...]
[...] The employer, in their capacity as a superior, has a power of control and surveillance over the employee's missions, as well as a disciplinary power over the employee in the event of a breach. The disciplinary power is defined as the employer's ability to sanction the employee's faults and breaches. This disciplinary power originates and is justified by the subordinate relationship that binds the employer and the employee. Therefore, disciplinary sanctions and the discipline that governs them are regulated by Articles L331-1 and L332-1 of the Labor Code. [...]
[...] The European Court of Human Rights has also been able to pronounce on these issues and exercises a significant influence on the evolution of national and European legislation in labor law. The interest in studying this subject is to study the way in which legislation follows the evolution of the world of work. At the legislative level, the relationships between the employee and the employer are regulated, in particular, by the Labour Code, which allows them to be defined. Thus, Article L1121-1 of the Labour Code prohibits the employer from sanctioning facts related to the private life of their employee. However, jurisprudence has limited this principle by admitting certain exceptions. [...]
