Uruguay

Yes, please find below some cases of interest:
- Decision Nº 340 of April 26, 2011 of the Administrative Claims Court, confirming the administrative decision of a public agency punishing an employee with 10-days suspension for using the agency’s IT systems to download videos and similar for personal purposes and endangering the confidentiality of the agency’s information. “The plaintiff acknowledged having used the IT equipment for activities alien to the job, upon detection in such equipment of files pertaining to DVD movie covers, children’s movies seen by his minor children, as well as MP3 music files.” The Administrative Claims Court confirmed the administrative decision, given that in a matter similar to the one at hand, involving the same act but performed by another employee having different responsibilities, Decision No. 101/10 was handed down, the concepts of which are entirely transferable to the case at hand: “…the decision herein was the culmination of the administrative investigation of –among others- …, an employee of the IT Department of …, who was considered liable for having incurred repeated serious administrative faults as a result of “totally abusive utilization of the Emule Program, as well as total and inordinate use for personal purposes of IT files and the verification and handling of IT applications that do not pertain to the functions of same, and that are not justified from the labor standpoint, as well as the danger of the actions as regards the damages to confidentiality that these actions may have caused to the information assets of the administration’s network.”
- Decision Nº 153 of June 27, 2012 of Civil Appeals Court Term 4. The Court overturned the first-instance Decision rejecting the claim, and hence ordered the co-defendants to provide compensation for the damages caused by the erroneous information issued. The plaintiff claimed damages caused by an error in the information provided to her by the co-defendants, giving rise to a decision to retire. The error led to a difference between the amount of the retirement benefit informed to her and the real amount.
- Decision of Labor Court of First Instance Term 14, Nº 20 of April 9, 2012. A claim was filed for labor items upon dismissal for notorious misconduct due to use of the employer’s email to send information to the employers’ clients and own clients on services provided by the employee’s family company. The compensation claimed for dismissal was denied given the employee’s notorious misconduct of using the company’s email for personal purposes during working hours. The Court found that the employee made clearly undue use of the email, which is the material property of the company to be used for fulfillment of its purposes, thereby constituting notorious misconduct.
- Decision of Labor Court of First Instance Term 1, Nº 13 of April 8, 2013. Dismissal for notorious misconduct was resolved based on photos taken at the workplace and uploaded to Facebook, as evidenced by screenshots and Facebook privacy policies. The plaintiff hung on her Facebook wall two photographs of her former coworkers FF and GG, in which they were in the offices of their boss engaging in activities not in line with their jobs. The said photos were uploaded to Facebook on Wednesday at 6:40 p.m. and on April 21 at 2:40 p.m., per the notarial certification produced by the defendant, from which it is deduced that the photos were hung in her Facebook profile outside working hours.