The Limits of Employer Authority in the Digital Age: Monitoring Employee’s Duties Performance
https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2025.175.6.111-118
Abstract
By virtue of the legal nature of the employment relationship, the employer possesses managerial authority, which includes the right to monitor employees’ performance of their job duties. Digitalization provides employers with new technologies for real-time monitoring (cameras, GPS trackers, biometric scanning, etc.). These technologies may lead to violations of privacy rights. Russian legislation lacks clear criteria for determining the legality of employer monitoring methods. An analysis of ECHR case law, enforcement practices and European Union legislation suggests at least the following criteria for assessing the legitimacy of employer monitoring: 1) legitimacy of the monitoring purpose; 2) suitability of the chosen means to achieve the monitoring objectives; 3) use of the least intrusive monitoring methods; 4) employee notification regarding the purposes, methods, and means of monitoring. These criteria can be applied in enforcement practice and further improvements to Russian labor legislation.
About the Author
A. V. Menkenov
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexey V. Menkenov, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Legal Support for Market Economy, Higher School of Law, Institute of Public Administration and Management
Moscow
References
1. Korshunova T. Yu., Nurtdinova A. F. Trudovoy dogovor v sovremennykh usloviyakh // Gosudarstvo i pravo. — 1994. — № 2. — S. 30–41.
2. Kurennoy A. M. Trudovaya distsiplina i predely khozyayskoy vlasti rabotodatelya // Ezhegodnik trudovogo prava. — 2021. — № 11. — S. 89–100.
3. Tal L. S. Ocherki promyshlennogo prava. — M.: Tip. G. Lissnera i D. Sobko, 1916. — 127 s.
4. Shuraleva S. V. Pravo na neprikosnovennost chastnoy zhizni v trudovom pravootnoshenii: teoreticheskie problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya // Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki. — 2022. — Vyp. 57. — S. 527–551.
5. Janneke G. How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights // International Journal of Constitutional Law. — 2013. — № 11 (2). — DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/mot004 (data obrashcheniya: 30.09.2024).
6. Möller K. Proportionality: Challenging the critics // International Journal of Constitutional Law. — 2013. — № 10 (3). — DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/mos024 (data obrashcheniya: 30.09.2024).
7. 7. Ponce Del Castillo A., Molè M. Worker monitoring vs worker surveillance: the need for a legal differentiation // Artificial intelligence, labour and society. — Brussels: European Trade Union Institute, 2024. — URL: https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/Artificial%20intelligence%2C%20labour%20 and%20society_2024.pdf.
8. Pozsár-Szentmiklósy Z. The Role of the Principle of Proportionality in Identifying Legal Capacity to Fundamental Rights // Studia Iuridica Lublinensia. — 2023. — Vol. 32. — № 5. — DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.5.333-358 (data obrashcheniya: 30.09.2024).
Review
For citations:
Menkenov A.V. The Limits of Employer Authority in the Digital Age: Monitoring Employee’s Duties Performance. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2025;20(6):111-118. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2025.175.6.111-118
Views:
4
Email this article 