A social worker in a medical-social facility, who was a protected employee, had transferred hundreds of work emails to her personal email account and that of her husband.
These emails contained confidential information about residents, i.e. sensitive data.
The employer requested authorisation to dismiss the employee for disciplinary reasons. Authorisation was granted by the Minister of Labour.
The employee contested this decision. The Administrative Court of Appeal ruled in her favour. According to the Court, the redirection had been carried out in the context of the employee’s concerns about changes to her role. It was irrelevant that this concern was not based on any substantial evidence of a real threat to her job. The Administrative Court of Appeal also ruled that the misconduct was insufficiently serious to warrant dismissal.
When the case was referred to it by the employer, the supreme administrative Court pointed out that the employment contract imposed absolute confidentiality and that the employee was subject to professional secrecy. It also pointed that internal rules prohibited the transmission of confidential data.
Further, the supreme administrative Court noted that the employee’s husband had no reason to access this data. Accordingly, the mass transfer of sensitive data could jeopardise the confidentiality of information concerning vulnerable individuals.
It thus ruled that while the employee was aware of her confidentiality obligations, the leak of this amount of data went beyond what was necessary for the employee to assert her rights.
The Court ruled that the misconduct was serious enough to justify dismissal.
