Remote Work – Close Monitoring. Where Do We Draw the Line?

The article examines the legal and ethical boundaries of digital employee monitoring in the context of remote work, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that respects both employer interests and employee privacy.

Why is it important to address this topic?

Remote work and working from home have become essential components of professional life for an increasing number of individuals. In this context, employers are seeking appropriate solutions to efficiently manage the activity of employees performing their duties remotely. For monitoring performance, system access and the level of employee engagement, many organizations resort to digital technologies.

At the same time, digital monitoring raises a fundamental question: to what extent may an employer supervise an employee’s activity without infringing upon their right to privacy?

As technology rapidly evolves, legislation must keep pace to ensure the fair protection of both employers’ interests and employees’ rights. It is a delicate balance that requires caution, clarity, and good faith from both parties.

What does the Romanian Law provide?

In Romania, the digital monitoring of employees is regulated by a set of legal provisions aiming to maintain an appropriate balance between the employer’s legitimate interest in efficiently organizing work and the employee’s right to privacy.

The Labour Code stipulates that any form of monitoring must be preceded by clear and detailed prior information and that such supervision must remain within reasonable limits.

Law no. 190/2018, together with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), introduces specific obligations regarding the manner in which employers may collect, use and store personal data, emphasizing the justification and proportionality of the monitoring measures.

With regard to telework, Law no. 81/2018 establishes clear rules: monitoring may only be carried out during working hours and exclusively by methods that have been expressly agreed upon by both parties.

Additionally, European case law, through the ECtHR judgment in the case of Bărbulescu v. Romania, has confirmed that while employers may supervise professional activity, they must always maintain a fair balance between the company’s interests and the employee’s right to private life.

In essence, the applicable legislation requires that any monitoring be conducted responsibly, with a legitimate and clearly defined purpose, while respecting the employee’s personal sphere, without transforming supervision into an invasive mechanism.

The employer’s perspective: when and why is monitoring justified

Monitoring employee activity, particularly in the context of remote work, may be justified from several legitimate perspectives, such as:

• Responsibility for performance and efficiency: Employers must ensure that tasks are duly completed and that professional activity is carried out within optimal parameters. In remote work, monitoring becomes an essential tool to assess whether objectives are being met.
• Protection of company data: Especially in sectors where sensitive information is processed, monitoring system access and the use of IT resources is essential to prevent data breaches or security incidents.
• Prevention of fraud and misuse of resources: Without a minimum level of control, there is a risk that company resources may be used for personal or improper purposes. Monitoring may assist in preventing such situations.
• Adapting to new forms of work: In remote work, direct supervision is no longer feasible. Digital monitoring thus becomes a modern mechanism for organizing and verifying professional activity.
• Monitoring as a support tool, not as a sanction: In many cases, monitoring may reveal operational bottlenecks, employee overload or periods of inactivity, providing the employer with valuable data to improve processes and support teams.
• Clarity and mutual accountability: A transparent monitoring policy helps establish a clear working framework, reduces misunderstandings and strengthens mutual trust between the employer and the employee.

Legal limits of monitoring: professional space vs. private life

Employee monitoring is subject to clear legal limitations. These limits protect privacy and professional dignity, even when the employee uses company equipment or works from home. Relevant examples include:

• The obligation to keep the camera permanently on: even in remote work, the employer cannot require the employee to be under continuous video surveillance. Such a request would be intrusive and would unduly interfere with the employee’s personal life, especially when working from home. However, it is justified to request the camera to be turned on occasionally, during meetings, presentations or online conferences, when required by the nature of the activity.
• Keyboard monitoring (keylogging) or accessing personal accounts: In general, using intrusive monitoring methods, such as recording all keystrokes (keylogging), is not justified, especially when it targets passwords or activity in personal accounts.
  Even if the device is owned by the employer, the employee still has a legitimate right to privacy and confidentiality, including for electronic communications.
  Such measures can only be considered in exceptional cases, when they are clearly justified, proportionate, and in line with data protection laws (e.g., GDPR), with proper transparency and prior notice to the employee.
• If the employee uses a personal device (phone, laptop) for work purposes, the employer may have a legitimate interest in protecting company data. However, any monitoring is allowed only with the employee’s explicit consent and based on a clear policy that defines its scope and purpose. The measure must be proportionate and comply with data protection laws.
• Covert monitoring: surveillance measures that are not expressly communicated to the employee (such as unmarked cameras, software installed without prior notice, or undisclosed GPS tracking) may raise issues of legality and proportionality. Such practices can only be justified in exceptional circumstances, based on a clear legitimate interest, and must be implemented in compliance with legal requirements on transparency, prior notice and privacy protection, in accordance with applicable legislation.
• Monitoring outside working hours: employee activity monitoring should generally be limited to working hours and should not extend to personal time, breaks or activities outside of work. Exceptions may exist, such as for the protection of company data or assets, but only if there is a clear legal basis and the measure is proportionate.

How do we draw the proper limit in digital monitoring?

In a world where remote work and flexible work arrangements have become the norm, digital monitoring must serve as a partner in achieving performance, not as a mechanism of excessive control.

The balance is found when monitoring is:

• Clearly communicated
• Properly explained
• Limited to what is strictly necessary
• Aimed at supporting professional activity, not at continuously supervising employees

For employers, the balance means protecting the company’s legitimate interests and efficiently organizing work without infringing upon the employee’s private life.
For employees, the right framework means knowing their rights and safeguarding their personal time and privacy, even when using company equipment.

Monitoring becomes beneficial when it supports professional activity, improves processes and is based on transparency, consultation and mutual respect.