Refusal of the employee to access certain documents in his personal file

Facts

[E.] was employed by X. Banking Corp. from 1983 to 1987, holding the position of deputy director. In 1984, he opened an account for a client domiciled in England, into which more than 9 million Swiss francs in English banknotes were deposited within one month. In the autumn of 1986, it emerged that this money originated from an armed robbery committed in England in 1983. The bank then had the circumstances leading to the opening of this account and the deposits investigated, in particular by private English detectives. In this context, [E.] was questioned for four days in October 1987 and was dismissed with immediate effect on the last day of the interrogation. [E.] subsequently brought two lawsuits against his former employer, one to obtain payment of his salary, compensation and a work certificate, and the other to obtain compensation for the damage caused by the bank's conduct. In the context of the first lawsuit, [E.] requested that the bank be required to produce certain documents establishing the unjustified nature of his dismissal. This request was deemed inadmissible, the court referring [E.] to bring a separate action to obtain access to these documents. [E.] therefore filed a third action to obtain unlimited access to his personal file and the production of certain documents, including two investigation reports from an English private detective agency and minutes of interviews with other bank employees. The Labour Court and the Superior Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed this action.

Considerations

The Federal Tribunal considers that the Federal Data Protection Act (FADP) is not applicable in this case, as the contested judgment was rendered before its entry into force. According to the case law of the Federal Tribunal, the legal effects of facts that occurred before the entry into force of a new law…