The general rule of thumb almost everywhere you go is that it is much harder to justify monitoring outside working time. Therefore, employers should avoid doing this unless they have a very good reason. We found that in Panama, Colombia, and Mexico, monitoring outside working hours would normally be considered excessive. Similarly, in Peru, monitoring employees outside working hours is a privacy violation. In Argentina, what an employee does outside work is up to them, and no disciplinary action is possible.
The story is similar in China. In the Czech Republic employees would take a dim view of monitoring outside work and neither is it accepted in Finland, Hungary, Cyprus, Austria, or Bulgaria. In Estonia, a GDPR country, monitoring can only be done for work-related activities, and employers cannot read private emails of employees sent using their business email addresses. In Latvia, monitoring employees outside working hours is not usually legitimate, but exceptions are possible if there is a strong suspicion of wrongdoing by an employee.
GET COMPLETE VISIBILITY OF ALL REMOTE USER ACTIVITY
- The remote keylogger employee management system visually records every action that all remote users make, even contractors and other third parties can be remotely monitored
- The remote keylogger employee management system tracks virtually all activities including actions taken in custom apps
- Monitor work-from-home employees and uncover what users are up to both online and offline
- Configure rules and policies to collect data on any user action, including granular field-level data entry
- Control who has access to monitored user data
- Track all user activity while complying with any applicable privacy requirements
- Monitor users on local machines, remote domains, servers, or terminal servers
JUSTIFIED EMPLOYEE MONITORING OUTSIDE WORKING TIME
Romania’s rules are that the employer needs a proven legitimate interest to monitor employees either outside working hours or at other locations, and that is hard to find. The same pattern is found in Turkey, New Zealand, and Switzerland. In the Netherlands, monitoring outside working hours is usually not possible because it would be hard to support it with a legitimate interest. In Denmark, one test is how intrusive the monitoring is compared to the issue it is intended to address keylogger employee management system. For example, employers cannot monitor vehicles made available for employees’ private use on weekends and during holidays. In Poland, the monitoring of employees outside working hours would have to be justified case by case. In some countries, the emphasis is slightly different.
“In some countries, the concept of employers being responsible for providing a healthy working environment is enshrined in health & safety law.”
Lawyers in Belgium confirm that as long as the monitoring is related to work, the same rules apply to monitoring in the workplace. There is a similar approach in Canada and Greece, where there is no fundamental legal difference between monitoring at the workplace and elsewhere; it is simply a question of proportionality. In Italy, monitoring outside work falls within a different set of rules and in such cases, employees are no more protected than the general public. In Germany, again, monitoring outside of working hours or outside the workplace is generally a breach of privacy, but in an interesting twist, employers are starting to support employees by using technology to block calls and emails at certain times outside working hours to support their ‘right to be unavailable’.