Can a boss interfere in the private lives of his employees?
30 September 2008
Read by 3202 persons
The line between professional and private life is blurry, and interference is inevitable. The employee has a right to privacy and in some cases benefits from legal loopholes, but the employer can intervene if the sustainability of their business is threatened. In some cases, and for humane reasons, the boss's interference is even desired.
The company is like a family. Many managers, based on this principle, go so far as to interfere in the private lives of their employees. Anecdotally, an HR consultant likes to tell the story of a somewhat paternalistic boss who personally tries to marry off the single people in his company. A way of showing his protective side but also of transmitting his "baraka".
In this case, we can say that those concerned are fully consenting. It must be said that in such a company, often small, the bonds with the boss are so strong that we can indeed speak of a family. But this is not always the case, and the company remains above all a place of production where people first have professional relationships. Some even go so far as to demand that personal problems remain in the locker room.
However, it must be acknowledged that the line between private and public life is very thin. The employee still spends at least a third of their day at the company, and, of course, there can be interference.
Among other examples: family problems can affect performance; personal mail is received directly at the professional address; work tools, especially the Internet, are used for private correspondence; many employees meet their spouses at work...
Every manager is therefore challenged on how to manage these problems. It is easy to say that the boss has a right to oversee everything that happens within the company. However, this idea is contradicted by Jamal Maatouk, CEO of Juris Land, who believes that "an employer has absolutely no right to interfere in the private lives of their employees to satisfy their curiosity".
However, when "financial, economic and commercial interests are threatened, it is their duty to act, to protect them," specifies the director of Juris Land. In short, they must act on a case-by-case basis so as not to upset their employees, even if, in the workplace, few openly complain of interference from their superiors or "surveillance" from the latter.
Internet generates many conflicts
Let's take the case of the Internet, which has become unavoidable. The hierarchy's right to oversee electronic mail has become problematic. Faced with the multiplicity of access to the Net and the generalization of messaging, many employees cross the line: mailboxes are full of personal mail, and the time spent consulting them sometimes exceeds acceptable limits.
Can the boss try to find out the content of all the correspondence? For the moment, there is a legal vacuum in this area. Most often, to avoid abuse, companies do more prevention, as is the case for the use of the telephone. "Internet access is limited to a few workstations within each department," confides an executive at a local bank.
But, in companies where everyone has access to the web, the problem is more difficult. Jurists are reduced to stating the general principles concerning the private use of company property. Thus, it is emphasized that an employee cannot, in principle, and unless there is tacit tolerance or express authorization from the employer, use electronic mail for private purposes at their workplace.
However, the practical methods of implementing control by the employer are not obvious. In France, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction of three administrators of a Paris business school for spying on the electronic correspondence of a student researcher. However, it qualified its judgment by making the fines imposed at first instance against the accused subject to suspension. This shows that the judges were embarrassed.
Another example, again in France, where the Court of Cassation ruled in a case opposing a company to one of its employees. According to its judgment, the company violates one of the employee's fundamental freedoms if it learns about their personal electronic messages, even if the non-professional use of emails is prohibited.
The problem of paper mail is simpler to deal with: if it is nominative and does not refer to the company, its confidentiality must be protected.
The manager must help without stifling
But what happens if romantic relationships develop between employees? The company is a social body. It is normal for emotional bonds to develop there. But, here too, the employer cannot accept that this happens at their expense.
This is why some employers arrogate to themselves a right of interference. For example, in an SME, a boss who learned of a very close relationship between his secretary and an employee asked the couple to choose which of the two would remain in the company.
He was afraid that this relationship would have consequences on the smooth running of the work, the secretary having, in addition to the secretarial work, to manage certain administrative aspects relating to personnel. The two partners in the couple considered the invitation to leave for one of them as an intrusion into their private life. But, according to an HR manager, this boss only sought to prevent problems for the company, even if a dismissal could, in this case, be considered abusive.
Moreover, to avoid conflicts of interest, some employers ensure that two spouses have no direct professional relationship.
For the rest, labor law is clear on certain behavioral aspects, particularly morality, within the company.
For example, an employee found guilty of being drunk at work cannot escape the ultimate sanction, dismissal, unless, out of leniency, the boss offers them a detoxification treatment. In the latter case, it is a desired and desirable interference because it stems from a concern for humanity. This can also happen in the case of an employee suffering from depression for family or other reasons. Should we let them sink? Common sense dictates that this should not be the case.
Similarly, if a couple's quarrels affect the working atmosphere, it is difficult for the boss who has learned of it not to intervene. These situations are summarized by Rosalba Luce, HR manager at mercure.com: "The manager can listen and provide support to overcome a personal difficulty of the employee, but while keeping a distance".
Brahim Habriche
Published on September 26, 2008
Posted online on September 30
lavieeco.com
The company is like a family. Many managers, based on this principle, go so far as to interfere in the private lives of their employees. Anecdotally, an HR consultant likes to tell the story of a somewhat paternalistic boss who personally tries to marry off the single people in his company. A way of showing his protective side but also of transmitting his "baraka".
In this case, we can say that those concerned are fully consenting. It must be said that in such a company, often small, the bonds with the boss are so strong that we can indeed speak of a family. But this is not always the case, and the company remains above all a place of production where people first have professional relationships. Some even go so far as to demand that personal problems remain in the locker room.
However, it must be acknowledged that the line between private and public life is very thin. The employee still spends at least a third of their day at the company, and, of course, there can be interference.
Among other examples: family problems can affect performance; personal mail is received directly at the professional address; work tools, especially the Internet, are used for private correspondence; many employees meet their spouses at work...
Every manager is therefore challenged on how to manage these problems. It is easy to say that the boss has a right to oversee everything that happens within the company. However, this idea is contradicted by Jamal Maatouk, CEO of Juris Land, who believes that "an employer has absolutely no right to interfere in the private lives of their employees to satisfy their curiosity".
However, when "financial, economic and commercial interests are threatened, it is their duty to act, to protect them," specifies the director of Juris Land. In short, they must act on a case-by-case basis so as not to upset their employees, even if, in the workplace, few openly complain of interference from their superiors or "surveillance" from the latter.
Internet generates many conflicts
Let's take the case of the Internet, which has become unavoidable. The hierarchy's right to oversee electronic mail has become problematic. Faced with the multiplicity of access to the Net and the generalization of messaging, many employees cross the line: mailboxes are full of personal mail, and the time spent consulting them sometimes exceeds acceptable limits.
Can the boss try to find out the content of all the correspondence? For the moment, there is a legal vacuum in this area. Most often, to avoid abuse, companies do more prevention, as is the case for the use of the telephone. "Internet access is limited to a few workstations within each department," confides an executive at a local bank.
But, in companies where everyone has access to the web, the problem is more difficult. Jurists are reduced to stating the general principles concerning the private use of company property. Thus, it is emphasized that an employee cannot, in principle, and unless there is tacit tolerance or express authorization from the employer, use electronic mail for private purposes at their workplace.
However, the practical methods of implementing control by the employer are not obvious. In France, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction of three administrators of a Paris business school for spying on the electronic correspondence of a student researcher. However, it qualified its judgment by making the fines imposed at first instance against the accused subject to suspension. This shows that the judges were embarrassed.
Another example, again in France, where the Court of Cassation ruled in a case opposing a company to one of its employees. According to its judgment, the company violates one of the employee's fundamental freedoms if it learns about their personal electronic messages, even if the non-professional use of emails is prohibited.
The problem of paper mail is simpler to deal with: if it is nominative and does not refer to the company, its confidentiality must be protected.
The manager must help without stifling
But what happens if romantic relationships develop between employees? The company is a social body. It is normal for emotional bonds to develop there. But, here too, the employer cannot accept that this happens at their expense.
This is why some employers arrogate to themselves a right of interference. For example, in an SME, a boss who learned of a very close relationship between his secretary and an employee asked the couple to choose which of the two would remain in the company.
He was afraid that this relationship would have consequences on the smooth running of the work, the secretary having, in addition to the secretarial work, to manage certain administrative aspects relating to personnel. The two partners in the couple considered the invitation to leave for one of them as an intrusion into their private life. But, according to an HR manager, this boss only sought to prevent problems for the company, even if a dismissal could, in this case, be considered abusive.
Moreover, to avoid conflicts of interest, some employers ensure that two spouses have no direct professional relationship.
For the rest, labor law is clear on certain behavioral aspects, particularly morality, within the company.
For example, an employee found guilty of being drunk at work cannot escape the ultimate sanction, dismissal, unless, out of leniency, the boss offers them a detoxification treatment. In the latter case, it is a desired and desirable interference because it stems from a concern for humanity. This can also happen in the case of an employee suffering from depression for family or other reasons. Should we let them sink? Common sense dictates that this should not be the case.
Similarly, if a couple's quarrels affect the working atmosphere, it is difficult for the boss who has learned of it not to intervene. These situations are summarized by Rosalba Luce, HR manager at mercure.com: "The manager can listen and provide support to overcome a personal difficulty of the employee, but while keeping a distance".
Brahim Habriche
Published on September 26, 2008
Posted online on September 30
lavieeco.com
