Employment & HR Article
26 January, 2018
Surveillance and privacy in the work has been under the spotlight recently at the European Court of Human Rights. The cases of Antovic and Mirkovic v Montenegro and Lopez Ribaida & Ors v Spain considered whether video surveillance breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 8 of the ECHR protects individuals right to respect for their private and family life.
In the Antovic and Mirkovic case, the Dean of the School of Mathematics at the University of Montenegro informed the professors that video surveillance has been introduced and that it was in the auditoriums where classes were held. Later a decision was issued which specified that the aim of the measure was to ensure the safety of property and people including students and the surveillance of teaching. It was confirmed that access to data that was collected was protected by codes known only by the Dean and the data were to be stored for a year.
Antovic and Mirkovic complained about this to the Personal Data Protection Agency on the basis that safety was not an issue and in any event there were other means of protecting people and property and monitoring classes. The Agency ordered the University to remove the cameras.
Antovic and Mikovic then brought compensation claims for a violation of their right to private life, notably by the unauthorised collection and processing of data on them. The Domestic Courts ruled against them at first instance and on appeal. The European Court however found that the right to privacy under Article 8 had been breached and although the University is a public sphere, private life encompasses business and professional activities.
In the Lopez Ribalda case the applicants were all working as cashiers for a family owned supermarket chain. The employer notices some irregularities between stock levels and what was actually sold on a daily basis. They installed both visible and hidden cameras. The purpose of the visible cameras was to record customer thefts and they were pointed towards the entrances and exits. The hidden cameras were zoomed in on the checkouts and area behind the cash desk. Notice was given to staff of the visible cameras but not the hidden cameras.
Those accused of theft admitted their involvement and were dismissed. They brought unfair dismissal claims and argued breach of their right to protection of their privacy. The Spanish court held that the measure was justified, appropriate to the legitimate aim pursued, necessary and proportionate. The European Court did not agree found again that Article 8 had been violated on the basis that surveillance in the workplace is an intrusion into private life and this includes personal appearance.
These cases do not however mean that video surveillance in the workplace is no longer possible. Caution must be exercised and it is almost impossible to justify covert surveillance. Employers who have this in place must ensure that employees are explicitly, precisely and unambiguously informed of its existence. In addition, they must been informed how this data will be processed, the purpose for collection and who has access. The scope of the surveillance should be limited and there are guarantees against abuse.
With the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulations in May, employers should consider their surveillance practices carefully and take advice to ensure they are fully compliant.
If you are looking for any more information with regards to this or our services please view our Employment & HR section. You can also contact our Employment and HR department via email or phone on 03332 071135. Alternatively send any question through to Forbes Solicitors via our online Contact Form.
20 Feb 2019
Employment & HR
Ms De Groen had been employed as a teacher by Gan Menachem, an ultra-orthodox Jewish Nursery, since July 2012…
Emma led us through a complex Employment Tribunal case which we would not have successfully succeeded without her and the team at Forbes support, they made us feel at ease throughout the process
Alexander Dennis Limited
We wouldn't work with any other firm when it comes to employment and HR topics.
UK HR Business Partner
Voith Paper Ltd
The service offering at Forbes is of outstanding quality and value and has consistently exceeded our expectations.
Head of HR
Head of department Jonathan Holden leads a team of 'highly competent individuals' covering the full range of employment matters.
2018-19 edition Legal 500
Forbes Solicitors provides 'swift, efficient and pragmatic advice to its clients'.
2018-19 edition Legal 500
We find that the Forbes team take a pragmatic and supportive approach and enjoy working with their team.
Kepak Convenience Foods
We approached Forbes Solicitors on a recommendation because as a small independent organisation we needed clear guidance and backing on HR matters.
Piccadilly Garden & Support Service
The Forbes team were fantastic, the work and effort they put in was impressive and I was made to feel at ease throughout the proceedings. I can not thank the Forbes team enough
Without doubt Jonathan Holden is like a security blanket. He understands that schools need to act in the best interest of school as a whole
Brenda P Allen
I will keep promoting you and your services because I'm fully committed to the quality of your work and the impact that it has in school.
Ashton Community Science College
Amy Stokes was more than helpful throughout the whole process - Thank you Amy.
Forbes are proactive in relation to changes in legislation and keep me informed via regular seminars, updates and bulletins.
Business Support Manager
Birchall Catering Supplies Ltd
I have always found everyone at Forbes to be approachable, helpful and professional, and would have no hesitation in recommending them to any other business
E A Foulds Limited
May I say how much the employment team at Forbes have helped Samlesbury Hall with staff issues over the past ten years.
...we have found Forbes to be an excellent team of people to work with, fully understanding our needs and goals.
Apeks Marine Equipment Ltd.