The employer can spy on you on Facebook even using a false … – The Messenger

ROME – The employer may adopt a false identity for ‘ prime ‘ Facebook the employee suspected of chatting during working hours and thus jeopardize the safety of facilities which is in charge and the regular function Company .
was stated by the Supreme stressing that this type of control is legitimate because it has “concerns the work and its exact fulfillment, but the commission of any unlawful conduct by the employee ‘already’ claimed them “previously.

With these motivation the supreme court confirmed the termination for cause of a worker Abruzzo officer presses a printing who had been away from his spot to chat for a quarter of an hour. So it was not able to action “ readily ” on a press blocked by a sheet that had been stuck in the mechanism.

worker in the following days had talks with mobile phone in conversations about Facebook . In his locker company he had been found an iPad on and in connection with the power grid. To verify with certainty these ‘habits’ of the employee, the company had instructed the responsible personnel to create “a false profile of woman Facebook ” to lure the worker suspected of violating the provisions on business Security of processing steps and equipment.

According to the employer this type of investigation did not violate the statute of workers because it lacked “of continuity , inelasticity , invasion and compression of the autonomy of the worker. ” This view was shared by the Section work of the Supreme Court judgment with the 10,955 . In the opinion of the supreme judges tend eligible controls defensive “hidden” even “by personnel foreign business organization, as direct finding of behavior offenses other than mere non-performance of work performance, quantitatively and qualitatively, “provided that the methods of assessment are not” overly invasive “and are” respect the guarantees of liberty and dignity of employees. “

To stoats false profile on Facebook , “it was intended to find and punish behavior likely to affect the company’s assets, in terms of the functioning and the Security of systems ” and was a “defensive control ” ex post ‘stressed’ by episodes that occurred in the previous days, and that is, by the finding of violation by the employee of the disposal company which prohibits the use of the phone and the swing of activities outside work during the time of service. “

Even locate the employee through his” access to Facebook from your mobile ‘is a’ technical ‘allowed – explains Supreme – “the presumed awareness of the worker can be located through the system of satellites of his cell.” To cut to the chase, the Supreme Court stressed that “it is the principle stated by the criminal law” that control a person remotely via GPS is a form “of stalking performed with technological tools, not comparable to interception activities’ subject to strict authorization and It constitutes “ pretty activity investigation atypical whose results are certainly used during the preparation of the conviction of the court.”