지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In recent years, with an environment of affordable technology and a lack of adequate regulation, there has been an explosion in the use of electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace. As a result, there has been growing conflict of interests between an employer and an employee regarding job monitoring.
This paper takes up the challenge from an employee's privacy as a personal right in workplace. In this paper, the topic can be divided into four parts. The first treats with finding out what an employer's legitimate rights are and what an employee's rights are for workplace monitoring. The second overviews some rules and regulations of another countries about technological surveillance in workplace by comparative methods. Generally speaking, in Germany, England, USA and Japan, there are no provisions which specifically regulate workplace monitoring. Instead, four countries has more general acts such as 'The Federal Data Protection Act' in Germany and 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act' in England which regulate workplace monitoring. Nevertheless, each of them have tried to strike an appropriate balance between an employer's interest in employees' performance on the job and an employee's interest for reasonable privacy. In the third, the legality of surveillance by using electronic equipment is analyzed according to ways of monitoring. In relation to the legality, third person's right concerned is other important issue. The last is about whether consent by an employee or employee representations can justify all surveillance by itself.
Then, the conclusion of this study is summarized as followings:
The legality of electronic monitoring and surveillance depends on a balance of an employer's reasonable interest and an employee's right of privacy in workplace. There are some criteria for the legality. First of all, whether an employer has reasonable reasons to monitor an employee's job. Secondly, whether another measures don't exist except by electronic equipments. Thirdly, whether an employer try to avoid violating an employee's right of privacy as possible. Fourth, whether electronic oversight is previously notified to an employee.
Even though some electronic oversight can be considered as violation of an employee's right of privacy, the oversight would be justified with consent of employee as an individual. However, the consent should be based on an employee's free will and the way to monitor can not significantly violate the fundamental right of an individual employee as
a human being.
Furthermore, forms of collective consent, for example, collective bargaining agreement and another labor-management agreements are possible to adjust conflicting interests between an employee and an employer. But the collective consent by labor union or employee representations can not be always justified, the legality depends on an employee's fundamental right. Because individual consent by an employee should be more respected than collective consent by labor union or employee representations III the matter of employee surveillance.
This paper takes up the challenge from an employee's privacy as a personal right in workplace. In this paper, the topic can be divided into four parts. The first treats with finding out what an employer's legitimate rights are and what an employee's rights are for workplace monitoring. The second overviews some rules and regulations of another countries about technological surveillance in workplace by comparative methods. Generally speaking, in Germany, England, USA and Japan, there are no provisions which specifically regulate workplace monitoring. Instead, four countries has more general acts such as 'The Federal Data Protection Act' in Germany and 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act' in England which regulate workplace monitoring. Nevertheless, each of them have tried to strike an appropriate balance between an employer's interest in employees' performance on the job and an employee's interest for reasonable privacy. In the third, the legality of surveillance by using electronic equipment is analyzed according to ways of monitoring. In relation to the legality, third person's right concerned is other important issue. The last is about whether consent by an employee or employee representations can justify all surveillance by itself.
Then, the conclusion of this study is summarized as followings:
The legality of electronic monitoring and surveillance depends on a balance of an employer's reasonable interest and an employee's right of privacy in workplace. There are some criteria for the legality. First of all, whether an employer has reasonable reasons to monitor an employee's job. Secondly, whether another measures don't exist except by electronic equipments. Thirdly, whether an employer try to avoid violating an employee's right of privacy as possible. Fourth, whether electronic oversight is previously notified to an employee.
Even though some electronic oversight can be considered as violation of an employee's right of privacy, the oversight would be justified with consent of employee as an individual. However, the consent should be based on an employee's free will and the way to monitor can not significantly violate the fundamental right of an individual employee as
a human being.
Furthermore, forms of collective consent, for example, collective bargaining agreement and another labor-management agreements are possible to adjust conflicting interests between an employee and an employer. But the collective consent by labor union or employee representations can not be always justified, the legality depends on an employee's fundamental right. Because individual consent by an employee should be more respected than collective consent by labor union or employee representations III the matter of employee surveillance.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 근로감시·관찰의 유형과 실태
Ⅲ. 근로감시·관찰을 둘러싼 근로관계 당사자의 권리 검토
Ⅳ. 관련 법적 규제에 대한 비교법적 검토
Ⅴ. 근로감시·관찰의 허용근거와 판단기준
Ⅵ. 주요 유형별 구체적 판단
Ⅶ. 근로감시·관찰 시스템 도입절차로서의 집단적 동의의 한계
Ⅷ. 요약 및 결론
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
근로감시의 한계에 대한 법적 규율에 관한 연구
노동법학
2014 .03
-
근로자의 개인정보와 프라이버시 보호에 관한 법적 판단
한양법학
2010 .08
-
사업장 내 정신건강문제의 법적 고찰
노동법연구
2017 .09
-
전자적 수단에 의한 근로자 감시와 노동법적 과제
노동법포럼
2009 .04
-
사용자의 지시에 대한 근로자의 대응과 그 효과
강원법학
2008 .06
-
공무원의 노동관계법상 지위에 관한 연구
노동법포럼
2010 .04
-
근로기준법상 근로자 동의의 기능과 한계 — 규제 완화의 요건 혹은 해석의 기준 —
노동법논총
2020 .04
-
전자감시기술을 이용한 노동통제로부터의 근로자 권리 보장 방안
고려법학
2008 .01
-
노동법상 근로자ㆍ사용자 개념 확대를 둘러싼 쟁점과 입법적 과제
노동법학
2014 .03
-
근로자 사생활의 의미와 보호범위
노동법학
2006 .06
-
우리사주매수선택권에 관한 연구
法學論文集
2015 .01
-
기업 간 전출 시의 징계권 행사에 대한 고찰
법학연구
2019 .08
-
종업원에 의한 직무발명의 사용·공개와 영업비밀 침해
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
우리 나라 호텔프론트 종사원의 직무 복잡성 평가 연구
호텔경영학연구
2000 .02
-
Employee Voice Mechanisms in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia : The Case of Workers’ Committees
산업관계연구
2012 .03
-
헌법상 노동권 소고(小考) : 개별근로관계 사례를 중심으로
노동법연구
2007 .06
-
근로자참여와 조직성과 : 노사소통의 매개 역할
산업관계연구
2009 .12
-
판례를 통해 본 미국 공정근로기준법상의 근로자의 의미
원광법학
2009 .01
-
호텔 교육 성과에 대한 동기부여가 직원의 경력유효성 및 만족도에 미치는 영향 -서울시내 특급호텔 기업을 중심으로-
관광경영연구
2009 .01
-
사용자 지시권의 내재적 한계와 제한의 결정원리
노동법학
2007 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-336-014099774