Arbetstagares integritet på arbetsplatsen

Sammanfattning: The issue of measures which are sensitive from a privacy perspective appears to be rather unregulated in Swedish law. Lately the question has been the subject of intense discussions and in 2008 a proposition of a future law is expected. At present time the current rules are found in the Personal Data Act, the law concerning general video surveillance and labour principles such as employer's supervisory right, collective agreements and occasional regulations in law, i.e. the law concerning right of participating in decision-making. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the legal situation concerning privacy in the working life. The Personal Data Act is applicable on automated and manual processing of personal data and since January 2007 a division is made between structured and unstructured material. The complete law is applicable on structured material, which includes the so called handling rules, i.e. a demand of consent and an acceptable reason for the treatment. An example of treatment is controlling an employee's e-mail account. Among unstructured material you find video surveillance. Preparation of unstructured data is limited by a rule of improper intrusion on privacy, which means that the treatment must not violate the privacy of the registered. In practice this division has only a little signification, since the rule of misconduct often means that the handling rules are indirectly applied. The right to privacy is considered as a human right. As a result limitations have been introduced to the possibility to enter a collective agreement, which deviates from the statutory protection of the Personal Data Act. By this follows that the parties may not agree on neither more nor less rights for the employee. According to the law concerning general video surveillance, supervision is allowed at most places of work without any major restriction except the appropriate respect for the individual's privacy, that must be considered at every video surveillance. Unlike surveillance of public places, banks and stores the employer does not need a permission from the Count Administrative Board to install a surveillance camera, nor does he or she need to notify the Board. In the end this means that the protection of privacy in private spheres is rather limited. If an employer intends to carry out a measure which may be sensitive from a privacy perspective, the employer's interest of realizing the measure must be weighed against the employee's interest of non-realization, if the measure is grounded on the employer's supervisory right, a collective agreement or an individual agreement. The labour court has accepted crime prevention, safety and healthy work, environment guard and protection of the public opinion as reasons to introduce a sensitive measure. The employee's interest of privacy has in these situations been sacrificed.