If you are advising a company on employee relations issues and the company is working with foreign companies, William Herbert's article Workplace Electronic Privacy Protections Abroad:  The Whole Wide World is Watching, 19 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 379 (2008) might be a helpful resource.  The article provides a comprehensive overview of the governing frameworks on workplace privacy in the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada. 

Additionally, for those of us interested in reforming workplace privacy laws in the United States, the article provides some food for thought. 

European laws offer protections from monitoring of employees' communications and activities.  A Privacy Directive issued by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union "imposes numerous obligations on Member States."

Under the Directive, each member state must establish "an independent governmental entity, known as a supervisory authority, to ensure compliance with the national legislation enacted consistent with the Privacy Directive."  These entities have the "following administrative responsibilities and duties:"

A.      To hear and resolve claims . . .

B.      Investigative powers including the power to access the data at issue and to collect information necessary to engage in supervisory duties;

C.      To issue opinions with respect to the handling of data . . . to order the blocking erasure or destruction of data;

D.      To commence legal proceedings . . .  [and]

E.      To prepare regular reports regarding their activities.

In addition to the national entities, the Directive establishes a Working Party, an advisory body that issues opinions interpreting the Privacy Directive.  A 2002 Working Party working document advises that use of an employer's "communication devices" or facilities does not, on its own, destroy an employee's "legitimate expectation of privacy at the workplace."    

In 2005, the Working Party issued an opinion on the use of employee location data.  The opinion states that employers should monitor employees' location only when they have a specific need to do so, such as when people or goods are transported by the employee or when the employer aims to improve resource distribution.  "[T]he opinion emphasizes that it would be inappropriate for an employer to collect location data for periods when an employee is not working and recommends that all vehicles with tracing equipment should enable an employee to switch off the location function."

Another Working Party opinion issued in 2001 requires the employee's consent to an employer "processing sensitive data that reveals an employee's race, ethnicity, religion, political opinions, philosophical beliefs, union membership, health, or sex life."  Consent must be given by "free choice" and a subsequent withdrawal of consent must be without detriment to the employee.  (The Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal Data also "contains restrictions on the gathering of personal data that reveals racial origin, political opinions, religious and other beliefs, as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life and criminal convictions.  Automatic data collection with respect to these topics is prohibited unless a subject country has enacted domestic law that provides sufficient safeguards.") 

Moreover, the practice of consulting with worker representatives before establishing a monitoring policy is repeatedly cited in European documents.  The United Kingdom ("UK") extends the idea of consultation with employees beyond the union setting.  The UK's Information Commissioner's Office recommends "that before implementing a monitoring system, an employer should conduct an adverse impact assessment for the purposes of establishing a balanced program that factors in both the employer's business needs and the employee privacy interests."  Part of this assessment includes consideration of "whether there has been consultation with the union or the employees themselves."