Systematic construction of lawfulness of processing employees’ personal information under China's personal information protection law

Abstract

With the rapid development and widespread use of digital technologies in the workplace in China, employers’ right to monitor and direct employees has often been abused, raising a number of disputes over the infringement of employees’ right to privacy in terms of their personal information. China must urgently develop an appropriate approach to balancing these two conflicting interests. However, there is currently no coherent and uniform regime governing the protection of employees’ personal information in China. The primary legal source on which employers can rely is the latest version of the Chinese Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which offers three lawful bases for employers’ processing of their employees’ personal information. These bases are employee consent; “necessity for the conclusion or performance of an employment contract”; and “necessity for conducting human resource management.” Concerns have been expressed regarding the reasonableness and effectiveness of the three lawful bases under the PIPL. First, it is both legally and practically problematic for the PIPL to rely so heavily on employee consent. Second, it is unclear whether the other two lawful bases relieve employers of the duty of notification and, if so, how to safeguard employees’ right to know. Third, the ambiguous standard of “necessity” requires clarification.This article argues that China should adopt many elements from EU law, while US law should be only followed in relation to the standard of “necessity”. In relation to employee consent, the EU approach is preferable to the US approach. As the EU approach does not generally regard employees’ consent as a lawful basis for the processing of their information and uses the other two lawful bases as alternatives to employee consent, this approach better reflects the customary practices of employee subordination and employer control in China. In contrast, US law deems employee consent to be an absolute general defense to the tort of privacy violation and adopts an employer favoritism approach to balancing these two conflicting interests, which is not appropriate in the Chinese context. In relation to the scope of necessity, three tests taken from the EU and US approaches should be considered by the Chinese courts. In addition, when processing personal information based on the other two lawful bases, employers should safeguard employees’ right to know through collective contracts concluded with labor unions or employee representatives under the Chinese Labor Contract Law, which would effectively address employers’ arbitrariness. Ultimately, these changes would produce a better balance between employees’ right to privacy in terms of their personal information and employers’ need to subordinate and control employees.