Several judgments have recently been rendered on the requirements for the legality of video surveillance recordings and their subsequent use for disciplinary purposes (mainly dismissal).
The Supreme Court has stated that the company must inform workers beforehand in which cases the records can be inspected, for how long and for what purposes, specifying that they can be used to impose disciplinary sanctions. It has also said that video surveillance cameras can be used to take evidence, even if the worker has not been specifically informed of the purpose of the work inspection, provided that the existence of the cameras is known and the principle of proportionality is observed.
For its part, the Constitutional Court found that the installation by a company of the sign “Video surveillance zone” at the entrance to one of its establishments corresponds to the obligation to inform the employee of the installation of these systems. Therefore, obtaining images justifying the dismissal of an employee complies with legal requirements for the collection and processing of this data.
Finally, in its judgment of September 1st, 2018, the European Court of Human Rights declared that the surveillance of workers by hidden cameras, even in cases of previously justified and subsequently confirmed suspicions of irregular behavior, violates the right to life. private and includes recoverable moral damages. However, if other evidence is presented in court that proves the criminal conduct, the dismissal can be qualified accordingly.
Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that the relevant decree will be amended shortly, not only due to the recent entry into force of the RGPD, but also due to the adoption of the draft of the new Basic Law on Data Protection, currently in preparation, which expressly provides for the regulation of the installation of video surveillance cameras.
THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS
RM Assessors Manager
What should be the limit of employer control?
In the debate, the fundamental right to privacy of the person was confronted with the freedom of company directors to organize and monitor all activities of the company. Recently, the Spanish courts have had a somewhat freer and more open interpretation than before.
This line of interpretation fits the new RGPD by clarifying that it is necessary to inform workers that they are being recorded and, moreover, the company must have an internal record showing that this video data is being collected or for what purpose and other requirements. Also in the new regulations it is not clear that a worker’s authorization is required and the preliminary draft of the Spanish regulation seems to be drafted in this direction.
ROBERTO IBANEZ CUTANDA
Economist at audipasa
Safety, inspection and compliance with labor regulations in workplaces are fundamental aspects, the relevance of which has experienced a growing trend during the validity of the LOPD and this RGPD.
Similarly, the disclosure, use and treatment of professional information in work centers require special attention, although it is recommended that image recordings appear in the center’s security document, in accordance with the regulations of the RGPD and comply with the special requirements of this law, temporary restrictions on disposal and exclusive access to authorized personnel and in this case judicial. A work problem, among other related ones, that requires timely advice on data protection to comply with regulations and allow the proper development of any type of business.
With the entry into force of the new RGPD, a new regulation applies to video surveillance cameras. From now on, the information obligation will be considered fulfilled by placing an informative poster in a visible place, indicating at least the existence of the same, the company that owns the registered images and the possibility of exercising rights of access, rectification, deletion, Contradiction, transferability and being forgotten. It is therefore not necessary to have a sign for each camera.
Note that the images can only be stored for a maximum of 30 days, unless they had to be kept to prove the commission of acts endangering the integrity of people, property or facilities, and the recording can only be done with the are made for the purpose of maintaining the safety of those persons, property or facilities.