employee used employer’s computer for personal matters without employer’s consent. By that the employee breached a duty, which is stipulated in subsection 1 of the
section 316 of the Labour Code.
11 The employer used a log of employee’s account
activity as evidence. The employee tried to defend himself stating that the employer
breached the data protection law by unlawful monitoring of his activities, but the
court sided with the employer, arguing that the employer must have a possibility to
ensure that his assets (the work computer in this case) are used in accordance with his
instructions and that the resulting intrusion into employee’s privacy was marginal.
Similar conclusion reached the Czech Supreme Court also in the decision
No. 21 Cdo 747/2013, delivered on 7th August 2014.
The Czech Constitutional Court had to deal with an opposite situation in its
decision on 9th December 2014, No. II. ÚS 1774/14. Here the matter related to
permissibility of evidence obtained by the employee through secret recording of a
discussion with his supervisor. The evidence was permitted with the justification,
that the employee did not have any other means how to prove the content of the
discussion. The legal permissibility was based on protection of the weaker party
threatened by serious harm (loss of employment).
On 2nd September 2014, City Court in Prague decided another case concerning
CCTV cameras at workplace. In the decision No. 8 A 182/2010 the court confirmed
a fine, which was set by the Czech Data Protection Authority to a vendor for having
CCTV cameras in the shop, because by that he unlawfully processed personal data of
his employees working at the counter and in the shop. The main breaches of personal
data protection obligations concerned lack of previous information about the monitoring, extensive duration of the data storage and lack of consent or sufficiently
serious cause justifying the surveillance pursuant to Section 316 of the Labour Code.
Important is also the decision of the City Court in Prague from 5th May 2017,
No. 6 A 42/2013, dealing with the monitoring of postmen through GPS trackers. The
employer, Czech postal service, was recording the location in short intervals during
the work routine of the postmen, whereas the identity could be inferred from
separately held task schedule. The Czech postal service defended the system by
special obligations to effective postal service derived from the specific Act on Postal
Services. The Czech Office for the Protection of Personal Data, however, found the
measures disproportionately in breach of employees’ privacy. The main issue was
the continuous recording, which stored all positions of the postman during his or her
working routine, including entering shops or public toilet. As the GPS tracking was
not based on previous consent of the postmen, court in its ruling sided with the
Office and confirmed its decision.
Despite the number of cases discussed in Czech courts concerning the processing
of personal data of employees and limits of their privacy in the workplace, we are not
11 Without their employer’s consent, employees may not use the employer’s means of production
and other means necessary for performance of work, including computers and telecommunication
technology for their personal needs. The employer is authorized to check compliance with the
prohibition laid down in the first sentence in an appropriate way.
National Report: Czech Republic
125
section 316 of the Labour Code.
11 The employer used a log of employee’s account
activity as evidence. The employee tried to defend himself stating that the employer
breached the data protection law by unlawful monitoring of his activities, but the
court sided with the employer, arguing that the employer must have a possibility to
ensure that his assets (the work computer in this case) are used in accordance with his
instructions and that the resulting intrusion into employee’s privacy was marginal.
Similar conclusion reached the Czech Supreme Court also in the decision
No. 21 Cdo 747/2013, delivered on 7th August 2014.
The Czech Constitutional Court had to deal with an opposite situation in its
decision on 9th December 2014, No. II. ÚS 1774/14. Here the matter related to
permissibility of evidence obtained by the employee through secret recording of a
discussion with his supervisor. The evidence was permitted with the justification,
that the employee did not have any other means how to prove the content of the
discussion. The legal permissibility was based on protection of the weaker party
threatened by serious harm (loss of employment).
On 2nd September 2014, City Court in Prague decided another case concerning
CCTV cameras at workplace. In the decision No. 8 A 182/2010 the court confirmed
a fine, which was set by the Czech Data Protection Authority to a vendor for having
CCTV cameras in the shop, because by that he unlawfully processed personal data of
his employees working at the counter and in the shop. The main breaches of personal
data protection obligations concerned lack of previous information about the monitoring, extensive duration of the data storage and lack of consent or sufficiently
serious cause justifying the surveillance pursuant to Section 316 of the Labour Code.
Important is also the decision of the City Court in Prague from 5th May 2017,
No. 6 A 42/2013, dealing with the monitoring of postmen through GPS trackers. The
employer, Czech postal service, was recording the location in short intervals during
the work routine of the postmen, whereas the identity could be inferred from
separately held task schedule. The Czech postal service defended the system by
special obligations to effective postal service derived from the specific Act on Postal
Services. The Czech Office for the Protection of Personal Data, however, found the
measures disproportionately in breach of employees’ privacy. The main issue was
the continuous recording, which stored all positions of the postman during his or her
working routine, including entering shops or public toilet. As the GPS tracking was
not based on previous consent of the postmen, court in its ruling sided with the
Office and confirmed its decision.
Despite the number of cases discussed in Czech courts concerning the processing
of personal data of employees and limits of their privacy in the workplace, we are not
11 Without their employer’s consent, employees may not use the employer’s means of production
and other means necessary for performance of work, including computers and telecommunication
technology for their personal needs. The employer is authorized to check compliance with the
prohibition laid down in the first sentence in an appropriate way.
National Report: Czech Republic
125