Big Brother at Work

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.

Back

26 Jan 2018

Employment & HR

NEWS AND ARTICLES

Big Brother at Work

Surveillance and privacy in the work has been under the spotlight recently at the European Court of Human…

Read the article

We find that the Forbes team take a pragmatic and supportive approach and enjoy working with their team.

Jayne Mizon
HR Manager
Kepak Convenience Foods

More clients

We approached Forbes Solicitors on a recommendation because as a small independent organisation we needed clear guidance and backing on HR matters.

Stephen Neaves
Manager
Piccadilly Garden & Support Service

More clients

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

Peter Morley

More clients

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
FCIPD

More clients

Jennifer was great and worked beyond the call of duty. No faults.

James Darby

More clients

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.

Sharon Asquith
Principal
Ashton Community Science College

More clients

Amy Stokes was more than helpful throughout the whole process - Thank you Amy.

Stephen Fielden

More clients

Forbes are proactive in relation to changes in legislation and keep me informed via regular seminars, updates and bulletins.

Nicola Watson
Business Support Manager
Birchall Catering Supplies Ltd

More clients

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

Catherine Ogden
Commercial Director
E A Foulds Limited

More clients

May I say how much the employment team at Forbes have helped Samlesbury Hall with staff issues over the past ten years.

Sharon Jones
Hall Director
Samlesbury Hall

More clients

...we have found Forbes to be an excellent team of people to work with, fully understanding our needs and goals.

Landon Helsby
Managing Director
Apeks Marine Equipment Ltd.

More clients

Make an enquiry