Dickies Warehouse Singapore

"The Data Protection Act and the rights and obligations of workers'

I want to emphasize one of the most controversial and contentious issues that I usually find when I perform audits on the protection of personal data. Of today is not one that referred to the rights of employees or workers and the right of companies to control the proper use and optimization of its technological resources such as Management Systems Information corporations, such as corporate email, computer equipment and software company, access and proper use of Internet and so on. So I recommend reading the following detailed guide for some time published the AEPD (English Agency for Data Protection) on its website www.agpd.es . Protection data labor relations, is a comprehensive and enlightening guide on what can and can not do a company when it comes to monitoring the correct and efficient management of information systems such as controls, biometric fingerprint, video surveillance controls on the computer, revisions and / or remote monitoring or analysis, indexing of web browsing, review and monitoring of email and / or the use of computers, controls on the worker's physical location by geolocation etc. with all these inspections, the chances of impact on workers' rights are multiplying.

On pages 27 and 28 of that guide, it states that development of entrepreneurship and in particular, when deciding to adopt a measure of control that involves a personal data must applied principle of proportionality. It must also comply with the duty of informing employees, this duty is particularly relevant in the case of controls on Internet use and / or email. In this case it is recommended that information workers is clear in relation to company policy regarding use of email and the Internet, describing in detail the extent to which workers can use the communication systems the company private or personal purposes. Eg It may be perfectly reasonable to provide a geolocation device tasks such as transporting goods for which it is relevant to know where is the vehicle and when you can perform a particular delivery. This can not be assumed that provision of a device of this nature to all employees of the company when its kind of provision makes it unnecessary, so there must be a purpose in this case, there can be other than that fixed by ET Art 20.3 "to verify compliance by the employee of their obligations and work duties."

must remember what was said about the existence of a widespread social habit of tolerance for certain personal uses moderate computer resources and communication provided by the company to employees. This tolerance also creates an expectation of confidentiality in those applications; expectation that can not be ignored, but not become a permanent impairment of corporate control, because even if the worker is entitled to respect for her privacy, can not impose this respect when using a means provided by the company against the instructions issued by it for use and without the checks provided for such use and to ensure continuity of service. Therefore, you need to do business in accordance with the requirements of good faith is to establish in advance the rules of use the media-with application of absolute or partial, and inform workers that will be control and the means to be applied in order to verify the correctness of the applications, as well as the measures to be taken in case to ensure the effective use of the work environment when necessary, without prejudice to the possible application of other preventive measures such as exclusion of certain connections. Thus, if the medium is used for private use against these prohibitions and knowledge of controls and measures may not be understood that, when monitoring has been violated "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in the terms establishing the European Court of Human Rights June 25, 1997 (case Halford) and April 3, 2007 (case Copland) to assess the existence of an injury to Article 8 of European Convention for the protection of human rights . (Judgement of the Board Social of the Supreme Court of 26 September 2007).