{"id":12979,"date":"2024-06-27T15:00:28","date_gmt":"2024-06-27T13:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.zambellipartners.com\/?p=12979"},"modified":"2024-06-27T15:02:51","modified_gmt":"2024-06-27T13:02:51","slug":"the-information-obtained-from-company-devices-provided-to-employees-cannot-be-used-if-the-employer-does-not-give-prior-notice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zambellipartners.com\/en\/the-information-obtained-from-company-devices-provided-to-employees-cannot-be-used-if-the-employer-does-not-give-prior-notice\/","title":{"rendered":"THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM COMPANY DEVICES PROVIDED TO EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE USED IF THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT GIVE PRIOR NOTICE"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/h2>\n

A new article by Angelo Zambelli on L&E Global website<\/h2>\n

The use of the information collected through \u201caudio-visual systems<\/em>\u201d or \u201cother tools from which also derives the possibility of remote control of the employees\u2019 activities<\/em>\u201d or, again, through the \u201ctools used by the employees to perform their work [\u2026]<\/em>\u201d\u2014referred to in Art. 4, Paragraphs 1 and 2, Law No. 300\/1970 is subject to the employer\u2019s fulfilment of the obligation to properly inform the employees pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the aforementioned article.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court confirmed this with order no. 15391 of 3 June 2024, deciding on the case of an employee hired as a travel technician who had been dismissed following a disciplinary proceeding due to irregularities emerging from the data that the employer acquired through the geolocation of his company laptop as well as the electronic toll collection device, the so-called\u00a0telepass<\/em>, installed on the company car he was using to carry out his functions.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court excludes that the remote control over the employee\u2019s activity deriving from the data recorded by the telepass<\/em>\u00a0can fall within the category, created by case-law of the so-called \u201cdefensive investigation in the strict sense,<\/em>\u201d which does not require prior and adequate information, as it is justified in and subordinate to the presence of a well-founded suspicion regarding the commission of an offense. In this case, in fact, the Court clarifies that \u201cit absolutely does not emerge<\/em>\u201d that the employing company \u201chad demonstrated and asked to prove the specific circumstances that had led it to activate that technological control.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court concludes that the telepass<\/em>\u00a0instrument, within such context, falls to all intents and purposes within the scope of application of Art. 4, Paragraph 2, of the Law No. 300\/1970, with the consequence that the information collected through it can only be used \u201cprovided that the employee is given adequate information on the methods of use of the tools and of carrying out the checks, as well as in compliance with the provisions of the legislative decree of 30 June 2003, n. 196.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-House Counsel<\/h2>\n

Practical Points<\/strong><\/p>\n