As for the right to privacy, which as aforesaid is not an absolute right and must be balanced against the employer's managerial prerogative, it was determined that this balance will be made in accordance with the nature of the work, the requirements of the position, etc. In the Isakov case, the National Court made a distinction between the number of e-mail boxes that the employee uses, in accordance with the following details:
A professional box owned by the employer - the employer may make a professional box available for the employee's use only for work purposes and prohibit the employee from using it for his own personal needs.
A mixed box owned by the employer - the employer may provide the employee with a box for work purposes and for the employee's private needs (another option - allocating a separate box to the employee in which he can manage only personal correspondence that is not related to work matters and needs, this is the personal box owned by the employer).
A private external mailbox owned by the employee - the employee uses this box for his own personal needs.
- As to the employer's ability to monitor the employee's correspondence, it was determined in the matter
Isakov said that this option will vary according to the type of box and as ruled:
"Since the employee's activity in the professional box and the correspondence he conducts in it were intended in advance and were limited to work purposes only, the employer is entitled to monitor, follow up and back up communications data in general and content data, including e-mail correspondence within the framework of the professional box. These actions are permitted to the employer only and subject to the principles of legitimacy, proportionality and the law. and provided that he gives the employees a detailed notice in advance of the policy in place of the workplace.... The legitimate actions of the employer during the monitoring and monitoring of communication data in the professional box may raise findings of personal correspondence that the employee conducts in the professional box, not for work purposes...In such a case, even if the employee's use of the professional box exceeds the authorization he received, and even if the personal correspondence was made in contravention of the prohibition on its existence in the professional box, the employer is not permitted to access the content data of the employee's personal correspondence and thereby violate his privacy. And to be precise. While the employer is entitled to access the content of the professional correspondence that the employee conducts in the professional box, his access to the content of the employee's personal correspondence is conditional on the existence of a serious concern, or a reasonable basis for criminal activity or other wrongdoings on the part of the employee. This is after alternative and less harmful means of surveillance have been exhausted by its infiltration into the content of the personal correspondence. To the extent that these requirements are met, only then may the employer request the employee's consent to penetrate the content of the personal correspondence that exists in the professional box...