Employee surveillance: a practical guide for employers (Agenda Digitale – 14 April 2025, Martina De Angeli, Alesia Hima)
Managing employee surveillance is a sensitive issue, especially with the rise of new technologies. Recent rulings from Italy’s Court of Cassation have clarified the legal boundaries surrounding this practice.
The role of Investigative Agencies Employers may use private investigators to check potential employee misconduct, such as unapproved absences or misuse of leave. However, these investigations must be focused, proportional, and lawful, ensuring they do not interfere with an employee’s work duties.
Monitoring company devices Employers may need to access employees’ devices, such as emails or laptops, especially when there is reasonable suspicion of misconduct. The Italian Supreme Court has recently clarified that checking an employee’s email is only permitted when there is concrete suspicion, and such checks must not be arbitrary or excessive.
Balancing business needs and employee privacy It is essential to strike a balance between business needs and employee privacy. Surveillance must be justified, proportionate, and never indiscriminate. Employers must ensure they follow legal guidelines to avoid misuse of the information collected.
Best practices
Reasonable suspicion: Surveillance should be based on a clear and justified suspicion of misconduct.
Proportionality: Monitoring should be proportionate to the potential risk to the company.
Legal compliance: Employers must ensure surveillance practices comply with labor laws and privacy regulations.
By following these principles, employers can protect their business interests while respecting employee privacy.
Yesterday, during our first webinar “HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners", the speakers Vittorio De Luca, Managing Partner, and Alessandra Zilla, Managing Associate at De Luca &…
“An employee may access the messages in their corporate email account and the documents stored on their computer after the termination of employment. Any limitations must be justified by specific…
With order no. 10559 of 21 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of unemployment benefits (i.e. “NASpI”) in the context of resignations for just cause following…
The Court of Milan, with judgment no. 683 of 3 April 2026, reaffirmed that a probationary clause (i.e. “patto di prova”) is valid only if it contains a specific indication of the duties subject to…
The provision amends Legislative Decree 81/2008 by introducing a new Article 3, paragraph 7-bis, which makes compliance with safety obligations conditional upon the delivery—at least annually—of a written…
With Order No. 7982 of March 31, 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section) held that a message sent within a private chat may constitute just cause for…