Court Reverses Decision on Employee Monitoring

Key takeaway: The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has held that an employer’s interception of private messages on a company system unreasonably restricted an employee’s right to privacy. This landmark ruling underscores the necessity for clear, proportionate monitoring policies in the workplace.

Background of the Barbulescu v Romania Case

An employer accessed intimate messages sent during working hours via Yahoo! Messenger between an employee, his fiancée and his brother. The Romanian courts originally found the monitoring justified and proportional. On appeal, however, the Grand Chamber concluded that the employer had failed to strike a fair balance between the employee’s right to private life and the company’s right to conduct its business.

Implications for UK Employers

Under UK law, minimal and proportionate monitoring of electronic communications may be permissible for legitimate business purposes (for example, ensuring compliance with internet policies). However, this verdict serves as a reminder that employers must:

• Communicate Monitoring Policies Clearly: Employees should be informed in advance about what is monitored and why.
• Restrict Access to Necessity: Only relevant communications should be accessed, and only to the extent required by the business purpose.
• Ensure Proportionality: Weigh the intrusion into privacy against the employer’s legitimate interests.

Further Reading

Explore more on workplace monitoring and privacy:

• Employee Privacy Rights in the Workplace
• Developing Effective Employer Monitoring Policies
• Workplace Monitoring and Privacy

About the Contributors

Taylor Wessing