The development of technology and the widespread use of the Internet in workplaces have made it easier for workers to perform their jobs. However, this situation has also caused new disputes to emerge. In fact, workers do not only use the Internet to perform their jobs, they also create free time for themselves by surfing the Internet during work hours and sometimes they can behave in a way that poses risks for employers.
There is no law in Turkish Law that explicitly regulates the employer’s authority to supervise and control the employee’s computer and Internet use and telephone conversations.[1]
In this case, it is clear that the general regulations in the Civil Code and the Code of Obligations will be applied in terms of the subject. Indeed, Article 24 of the Civil Code, which sets out which attacks on personal rights will be considered unlawful and which attacks of this nature can be applied to the court, has the following provision: “A person whose personal rights are unlawfully attacked may request protection from the judge against the attackers. Unless the consent of the person whose personal rights are violated is justified by one of the reasons of a superior private or public interest or the use of the authority granted by law, every attack on personal rights is unlawful.” At this point, it would be appropriate to touch upon the opinions in the doctrine on the subject. In the doctrine, it is stated that the protection of the workplace has become even more important in the face of developing technology; it is stated that this protection can be provided with cameras, but that it is not possible to accept that this protection will cover everything as a rule. In other words, protection by cameras is only accepted if it complies with the principle of proportionality. There is a difference of opinion regarding the use of cameras in the workplace for the purpose of controlling the worker. According to one opinion;
it is not possible to use cameras in the workplace for the stated purpose and in this case, the worker has the right to file a lawsuit in accordance with Article 25 of the Civil Code to prevent interference with his/her personal rights.[2]
The other view is that since the employer is using his/her right to manage through technological means, there is no violation of the law. According to those who defend this view, there is no difference between the employer assigning a person or persons to control the performance of the workers or to check whether the occupational health and safety measures are being followed, and using the cameras. However, since the employer’s right to manage, like any other right, can be abused, such control must be carried out in a way that does not harm the personal rights and values of the workers. In other words, since the cameras are constantly on, it means that the private behaviors of the workers are also being controlled, the cameras must be operated at certain intervals. In addition, the places where camera controls can be carried out in the workplace should be limited to the places required by the work, occupational health and safety measures, and the safety of the workplace. For example, camera control in the workers’ locker and dressing rooms, cleaning, bathroom, sleeping and childcare rooms, and also in the rest rooms will be a violation of private life.[3]
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision dated 10.10.2006, Merits No: 2006/19150, Decision No: 2006/26792, concluded that the behavior of the employee who continued to bet on the internet during working hours despite being warned beforehand and who therefore became excessively indebted and even faced enforcement due to credit card debt constituted a valid reason for the termination of the employment contract.[4]
Regarding the monitoring of the employee’s telephone conversations at the workplace; the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision dated 31.10.2000, Merits No: 2000/6487, Decision No: 2000/9467;
“It is seen that the words in the telephone conversation are confidential between two people and are words related to the private life of those people. Even if the words do not have this content, tapping a person’s phone or publishing the tapped conversations constitutes an attack on private life and even on the privacy of life, which should remain extremely confidential. Even if the person is a well-known person known by the society, private life cannot be disclosed in any way. Moreover, no one’s phone can be tapped.”
[1] Savaş, F. B. (2009). İş Hukukunda “Siber Gözetim “. Çalışma ve Toplum, 3(22), 97-132.
[2] Savaş, F. B. (2009). İş Hukukunda “Siber Gözetim “. Çalışma ve Toplum, 3(22), 97-132.
[3] Savaş, F. B. (2009). İş Hukukunda “Siber Gözetim “. Çalışma ve Toplum, 3(22), 97-132.
[4] Savaş, F. B. (2009). İş Hukukunda “Siber Gözetim “. Çalışma ve Toplum, 3(22), 97-132.