To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below:

Employee privacy protection versus interests and property employer

Radka Vaníčková ( The Institute of Technology nad Business in České Budějovice České Budějovice Czech Republic )

International Journal of Law and Management

ISSN: 1754-243X

Publication date: 28 June 2019



Aim of this paper is to provide legal analysis some chosen aspects protection of privacy of employee as one of its personal (personality) rights in labour-law relations so how follow from actual legal state of legislation of property protection and others rightful interest of employer.


Current legislation in general provides adequate privacy protection to employees in labour-law relations, but in the opinion of the authors is not quite adequately balanced with adequate legislative protection of property rights and employer private in the current legislative status of employee privacy protection. Employee privacy protection should be balanced by the increased protection of employer the interests who bears responsibility for the results of productive activities towards third parties and public power bodies, but responsible for any damage incurred to his employees. Authors of the paper are aware that constitutional order of the Czech Republic, the Civil Code, EU legislation and in the legal norms of labour law provide in general a sufficient guide for the fair and equitable application and interpretation of relevant law norms in the monitored area, next suggest realized legislative changes or additions in the area of employers protection of the interests and property in labour-law relations on the background of employee privacy protection.


The authors are of the opinion that the proposed change is not a denial of constitutional rules and legal provisions for the protection of personality under the Civil Code, and consider it to be balanced and professional experience to apply. Its purpose is to exhaustively identify the reasons for the introduction of control mechanisms, without prejudice to the principle of use only to the extent necessary and proportionate manner.

Research limitations/implications

Re-codified private law after 1st January 2014 is in many cases very a cased interpretation. For the issue of the interests and property protecting of the employer on the backgrounds of the employee privacy protection would be appropriate to legislative more elaborate the particular legal passages and chapters of the legal text and thus reduce the scope interpretation of the court decision. In order to stimulate discussion on the topic authors propose the following legislative adjustment provisions of §316 paragraph 1 and 3 of the Labor Code. The proposal allows for even that is rarely possible to get an audio recording that an employee in the course of his work, even without prior notice, if it is a compelling reason for involving the exercise and protection of employees.

Practical implications

Employees may not, without the consent of the employer to use it for their personal use, production and employment employer resources including computers nor its telecommunications equipment. Compliance with the ban in the first sentence, the employer is entitled to adequate controls. The employer shall not, except as noted below, interfere with the privacy of employees in workplaces and public areas of the employer that the employee undergoing open or covert surveillance, interception and recording of his telephone calls, checking e-mail or check the correspondence addressed to employees or making video and audiovisual recordings employee during his employment. These control mechanisms employer is entitled to a proportionate manner and to the extent necessary in the following cases: a) on grounds of legitimate interests and property of the employer against the threat or violation, b) on grounds of health and property and other employees c) other serious reasons. If it is for the employer is no reason that justifies the implementation of control mechanisms under paragraph 2, the employer is obliged to inform employees directly about the extent of control by way of implementation. The obligation to inform employees not arise in cases where there is imminent risk of injury to health or property of the employer, the employee, other employees or third parties, or in the case of a sound recording employees when acquired or used for the exercise or protection of other rights or legally protected interests of others people.


Weaker subordination position of employee in labour-law relations requires consistent protection and its personal interests towards employer follow from labour-la relations. These regulations have to have particular legal limits so that there was no threatened of even directly touched personal and personality rights of employee such as honour, human dignity, ethics, morality, reverence, mutual tolerance and labour-law relations in relation to an equality with participants with that employer carries responsibility for performance and results done work and it even towards to third persons when it has right to provide effectual protection property and personality rights. The proposal allows for even that is rarely possible to get an audio recording that an employee in the course of his work, even without prior notice, if it is a compelling reason for involving the exercise and protection of employees.


Vaníčková, R. (2019), "Employee privacy protection versus interests and property employer", International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. just-accepted No. just-accepted , pp. 00 - 00 .



Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited