Blog Layout

GDPR and Personal Devices – The Potential Pitfalls

Introduction - GDPR and Personal Devices


A recent case in Poland highlights the pitfalls of employees using personal devices to process work-related information.


The Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW) was found to have exposed the personal data of students and prospective degree candidates back in November 2019. Up to 100 students may have had their information exposed after data was stored on an employee’s personal device, which was later stolen. The university was not aware that the employee was processing students’ personal data on a non-work device, a statement from the UODO reads.


Employers Obligations under GDPR


The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) places significant obligations on Irish employers, in relation to how they collect, use and protect employee data.


Irish employers need to have adequate data protection training, policies, procedures and protocols in place, to secure employee data rights.


Any Irish employer involved in processing employee data shall be liable for the damage caused by processing which infringes employee GDPR rights, unless it can prove it was not responsible for the damage.


An employee may, where they consider that their rights under GDPR have been infringed, bring an action against their employer in the civil courts. Although not quite as developed in this jurisdiction, a data protection action shall be deemed to be an action founded on tort.


If successful in pursuing an action, an employee may be granted a injunction or compensation for damage (including material and non-material damage) suffered, as a result of the infringement of their rights by their employer.


GDPR and Personal Devices - Takeaway for Employers


In the present case, the president of the Polish National Personal Data Protection Office (UODO), the equivalent of the Date Protection Commissioner, fined the institution PLN 50,000 ($13,000) for a breach of GDPR rules. 

Irish employers must be transparent as to how they are using their employees data, safeguard that data and ensue such data is being processed in accordance with the GDPR principles.


Share

Remote work laws in Ireland

Remote Work Complaints Before the Workplace Relations Commission

by RG343171 • 16 August 2024
The case of Aline Karabko v TikTok Technology Ltd (ADJ-00051600) examines the obligations employers have, under Irish law, when a request for remote work is made by an employee. As the law in Ireland currently stands, there is no right to remote work per se. This may be overcome when an individual has been guaranteed remote work in their contract of employment or remote work has been determined to constitute a reasonable accommodation in accordance with relevant employment legislation, where applicable. However, none of these exceptions applied in the present case.
Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act

Force Majeure Leave and Parental Leave Rights

9 August 2024
The case of Dean Hart v Komfort Kare (ADJ00051923) examines the circumstances under which a request for time off, by a parent, from their employer, must be given due consideration. Dean Hart (the Complainant) brought a complaint under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 against Komfort Kare (the Respondent) to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), alleging that they denied him the right to take force majeure despite extenuating circumstances.
Constructive Dismissal and Sexual Harassment

Constructive Dismissal and Harassment in the Workplace

31 July 2024
The case of Care Worker v Costern Unlimited Company (ADJ00046268) examines the circumstances under which it will be deemed reasonable for an employee to resign and bring a claim of unfair dismissal by way of constructive dismissal on foot of a failure of their employer to properly investigate their complaints.
Payment of notice pay after probation

Payment in Lieu of Notice during Probation

6 June 2024
The case of Eric Bentley v Carcharger EV Limited (ADJ00050468) examines the circumstances under which an employee will be entitled to a payment in lieu of notice if dismissed during their probationary period. This is a very interesting case, as it was brought under the payment of wages provisions, but decided upon under notice legislation.
Interview discrimination

Discrimination Claims and the Burden of Proof

5 June 2024
The case of A Job Applicant v A Public Body (ADJ00049321) examines the burden of proof in discrimination claims, particularly when discrimination is being claimed at the interview stage.
The Burden of Proof in Constructive Dismissal Claims in Ireland

Burden of Proof in Constructive Dismissal Claims

3 June 2024
The case of Mark Lowry v JJ Fleming and Company Limited (ADJ00036677) examines the burden of proof issues that often arise in constructive dismissal claims. Uniquely, the employer offered no substantive evidence to support their case, yet won, highlighting the very difficult hurdles an employee often faces in bringing an unfair dismissal claim following their resignation.
Show More
Share by: