Abstract: In view of the limitations of the traditional privacy protection system, a new system should be introduced into the workplace to protect employees' privacy and personal information. Such a system requires the coordination of different laws, such as the civil law, personal information protection law, and labor law. In addition to the general value of protecting personal information, it also helps to secure the employees' or job seekers' right to equality, freedom of speech, and rights at work. Under this system, the principle of proportionality should be established as the core principle, in addition to the general principles of lawfulness, fairness, necessity and transparency in the protection of personal information, and a balance should be maintained between the legitimate interests of employers and the privacy rights of employees in the processing of employees' information. Due to the nature of the employment relationship—the imbalance in status and strength between employers and employees, the application of the principle of informed consent should be strictly restricted. An employee's consent alone should, in principle, not be taken as the legal ground for the employer's processing of their personal information. Drawing on the legislative experience of foreign countries, especially European ones, a general provision on the protection of employees' personal information should be included in the Personal Information Protection Law, and specific provisions should be included in administrative laws and regulations. At the same time, guidelines on the processing of personal information in workplace should be issued by administrative agencies, labor unions, or employers' associations. Labor unions or enterprises may also stipulate related matters through collective agreements or rules and regulations.
Keywords:employees; personal information protection; principle of proportionality; informed consent; employment law
The author of this article is a research fellow and the deputy director of CASS Law Institute. Source: 3 (2021) Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 25-39.
