European Restructuring Monitor (ERM)
Eurofound's ERM database on restructuring-related legal regulations provides information on regulations in the Member States of the European Union and Norway which are explicitly or implicitly linked to anticipating and managing change.
Act No. 89/2012, Coll. Civil Code, §84 to §90 Act No. 262/2006, Coll. Labour Code, § 316 Act No. 101/2000, Coll. Law on Protection of Personal Data Act No. 251/2005, Coll. on labour inspection Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
LAST UPDATE 2023 - THIS CONTENT WILL NOT BE UPDATED
The protection of employee privacy is mainly regulated by the Civil Code (Act No. 89/2012 Coll.), and then the Labour Code (Act No. 262/2006 Coll.), which regulates the property interests of the employer and the protection of the basic personal rights of the employee. Privacy protection is also regulated by the Personal Data Protection Act (Act No. 101/2000 Coll.). The protection of correspondence is guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Provision § 316 of the Labour Code provides an exhaustive list of ways that the law considers to be violations of the privacy of employees. This includes open or covert monitoring, listening and recording of the employee's telephone calls, checking e-mail or checking letters addressed to the employee.
The mentioned methods of monitoring employees can be considered legal only if the employer has serious reasons for their implementation related to his activity. At the same time, in this case, the law imposes an obligation on the employer to inform the employee about the introduction of these measures. Other ways, not mentioned in the law, are not a violation of labour regulations, provided that the control is carried out for all employees in the same way and to a similar extent. e.g. monitoring the movement of a company vehicle via GPS is not an invasion of privacy.
The State Labour Inspection Office (SUIP) is responsible for monitoring the violation of employees' privacy by wiretapping, recording telephone calls, checking e-mail or letters in the workplace. According to SÚIP's statement, the mentioned cases of privacy violations are not frequent in inspection practice and do not cause difficulties to recognise them. The use of camera systems, on the other hand, is more frequent and their application is very variable. The methodology of the Office for the Protection of Personal Data is used to determine which camera system meets legal requirements and which does not. This is a test of adequacy, which takes into account three points of view: suitability (if the chosen means will be capable of achieving the intended purpose - technical parameters and number of cameras, sufficient recording retention time, etc.), necessity (if it is not possible to ensure the intended purpose by others, objectively in a comparable way with the same or lesser interference with the protected values) and adequacy (whether the level of interference with the rights of employees is not disproportionate to the values that the employer protects with the camera system).
Based on the Annual Summary Report on the results of control actions for 2018, the office detected 39 cases, 40 cases in 2019, 97 cases in 2020, 26 cases in 2021 and 27 cases of violation of employee privacy in 2022.
The amendment to Act No. 251/2005 Coll., on labour inspection, which entered into force on July 29, 2017, allows the SUIP to fine employers for unreasonable interference with the privacy of employees according to § 316 of the Labour Code. SUIP can impose a penalty for violation of an employee's privacy up to CZK 1,000,000.
Eurofound (2023), Czechia: Employee monitoring and surveillance, Restructuring legislation database, Dublin, https://apps.eurofound.europa.eu/legislationdb/employee-monitoring-and-surveillance/czechia
This Eurofound research paper explores key trends in restructuring in recent years, highlighting the companies that announced the largest job losses and job gains in the EU. It builds on an analysis of company announcements recorded in Eurofound’s European Restructuring Monitor (ERM), alongside a new classification of restructuring events involving changes in company location.
:quality(80))
Employers increasingly use tools such as email, SMS and messaging apps like WhatsApp or Signal to communicate with employees. While these technologies offer both efficiency and convenience, their use in communicating sensitive information, particularly for notifying employees of dismissal, raises legal concerns. This article explores the legal framework on dismissals across the EU, with a special focus on the use of digital means for communicating employment dismissals. Drawing on examples from various Member States, it examines the legal validity of digital dismissals.
:quality(80))
In 2023, thousands of workers in big tech lost their jobs. Meta, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Salesforce had been considered to offer good and secure jobs up to this point. Giants of the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, these companies are among the highest paying, with Eurostat data from 2022 indicating that workers in ICT had the second-highest median gross hourly earnings (surpassed only by earnings in the financial sector).[1] These layoffs were a shock, especially as the biggest companies had hired extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic. What happened in the two years after this redundancy wave – was that the end of the cuts or did the companies start expanding again?
:quality(80))
In 2024, the automotive sector in the EU came to the fore in public and policy discussions. The focus was on the slowdown in electric vehicle (EV) sales, rising global competition, belated investments in new technologies, and the potential closure of production lines in Europe. A number of European car manufacturers and suppliers announced their intention to make large-scale redundancies and change long-standing collective agreements on job security and wages, while workers raised concerns amid demonstrations and industrial action.
:quality(80))