Attention workers in Muğla: Critical court decision
A high court decision that closely concerns all businesses in Muğla, where employee circulation is intense especially in the summer months, has gone into effect. This latest ruling by the Supreme Court on labor disputes fully protects employees' privacy rights on technological devices. Here are all the details...
Corporate smartphones and computers distributed by employers for use during working hours can no longer be examined without the consent of employees.
Messages read secretly or screenshots taken by unlawful methods will be deemed invalid in dismissal procedures. Similarly, in cases heard in labor courts, such unauthorized data cannot be used as evidence. This issue, which will also change the standards of corporate structures in Muğla, arose as a result of an engineer who has served the same company for five years going to court alleging unfair treatment.
Forced Tasks and Examined Messages
The employee at the center of the case claimed that during his five-year tenure he was forced to perform tasks unbefitting his title and not included in his contract. Reporting unpaid premiums, the engineer initiated legal proceedings stating that on the day his employment ended, the device was forcibly taken back without even allowing him to close his personal accounts on the company phone.
The employee side demanded severance, notice, and unused annual leave payments, as well as moral compensation for the seizure of his private correspondence. The company on the opposing side requested dismissal of the case, trying to prove that the termination was justified. The employer claimed that after taking the device, they scanned WhatsApp records, asserting that the employee sent insulting messages to colleagues and bosses and shared unauthorized photos.
Joint Stance from Local Court and Supreme Court
The company lawyers defended their position by stating that the hardware was purchased with company funds, and therefore all data in the device memory directly belonged to the institution. However, the first-instance court invalidated this ownership claim when ruling the case. The decision clearly stated that even if the device belongs to the company, this does not authorize violation of the employee's constitutional right to privacy.
The termination was found unjust and a compensation penalty was imposed on the employer. The company appealed, but the Regional Court of Justice rejected the appeal. At the final stage, the Supreme Court, reviewing the file, unanimously upheld the lower courts' decisions, affirming the employer's appeal was dismissed. Thus, it was confirmed that evidence obtained by rummaging through personal data of employees holds no value before the judiciary.
Source: NEWS CENTER
