Employee Private Life Protection

Extract

[...] In the company, the employee's private life is protected Nevertheless, it conflicts with other rights and interests (II). The protection of the employee's private life The protection of the employee's private life is ensured by the employer Nevertheless, this protection is limited by its scope of application A protection ensured The employee has the right to respect for their private life at work. In this sense, the installation of devices allowing the employer to monitor (and, if necessary, record) conversations of employees at work or in the canteen calls for the imposition of sanctions (document 3). [...]

[...] The jurisprudence has also found that the vaccination obligation could fall within the scope of these exceptional circumstances. This vaccination obligation would not constitute, according to the Cour de cassation, a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, which protects the right to respect for private life "as long as this obligation is evaluated in the context of the national regime and is situated in a reasonable proportionality relationship with the goals pursued by the State, namely the protection against diseases that may pose a serious risk to health" (documents 12 and 21). [...]

[...] However, it is susceptible to being reconciled with other rights and interests. II- The reconciliation of the employee's private life The respect for the employee's private life is weighed against other antinomic interests, both the right to evidence and exceptional circumstances and security requirements The right to evidence The employee's private life comes into conflict with the right to evidence. Thus, it would result from Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, that in a civil trial, the illegitimacy in obtaining or producing a mode of evidence does not necessarily lead to its exclusion from the debates (documents 4 and 5). [...]

[...] Exceptional circumstances and security requirements The employee's private life can also be balanced with exceptional circumstances and security requirements. The Labour Code in Article L. 1121-1 states that "no one can impose restrictions on the rights of individuals and collective freedoms that are not justified by the nature of the task to be performed or proportionate to the goal sought". In this sense, the Cour de cassation has validated a sanction taken against an employee who refused to open his bag in front of security agents. [...]

[...] This principle is valid except for the employee's breach of a contractual obligation. The Court of Cassation has thus been able to note that while a connection to internet sites unrelated to professional activity is allowed during working hours as long as it remains reasonable, on the other hand, abusive use of the connection could be subject to a sanction that is more or less severe depending on its gravity (document 7). Certainly, the protection of the employee's private life is ensured but is nonetheless limited. [...]