Search
Close this search box.

Covert cameras and fingers in the till

Surveillance at work is a tricky issue. Employers need to protect their business and property, including against the risk of unscrupulous employees.  The difficulty arises where this practical necessity comes up against data protection law and human rights.

Surveillance at work is a tricky issue. Employers need to protect their business and property, including against the risk of unscrupulous employees.  The difficulty arises where this practical necessity comes up against data protection law and human rights.

One recent case, and one old one, shows the developing approach to this area. In 2007 a German supermarket employee had been caught stealing from her employer by covert video cameras. She appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that the surveillance was an infringement of her right to private life. The court found in the employer’s favour.

In a more recent case, a series of Spanish supermarket workers were dismissed after being caught stealing by covert video cameras. After problems with loss of stock, their employer had told them cameras were being installed to monitor shoppers, but had not told them about the covert cameras. This was a breach of Spanish data protection law.

The court found in the former workers’ favour, awarding them €4,000 each, despite accepting that they were stealing from their employer.

The cases show just how tricky it can be to draw the line between protection of businesses and protection of human rights. In the first case, the employer had a particular suspicion about the employee, the surveillance was for a short duration and the area under surveillance was small and mostly open to the public. In the second case, the employer had imposed ‘blanket’ surveillance on all employees, at all times, covering almost all the store, based on a general suspicion.

In the UK, covert surveillance of employees is tightly controlled. It should only be carried out in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is a specific risk of criminal activity. Even so, it must be:

1.Absolutely necessary for the surveillance to be covert rather than open

2. For a limited duration

3. Targeted at specific individuals

4. Across as narrow an area as possible

5. Athorised at a senior level – for most businesses, this means a director.

Employers should update their data protection policies to meet the above requirements. Doing so will give them a solid framework for any surveillance and will be the first defence against claims by employees.

López Ribalda and others v Spain (Application nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13)

Köpke v Germany (Application no. 420/07)

Nick Hobden Partner and Head of Employment – Thomson Snell & Passmore.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

Is your business ESG savvy enough?

20 February 2024

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

London School of Economics and Political Science – Human ResourcesSalary: £29,935 to £33,104 pa inclusive with potential to progress to £35,441 pa inclusive of London allowance

£75,000-80,000 + £8,000 car allowance + bonus. The role will also require regular travel to the main sites in East Midlands region. £75,000 – £80,000

To help solve the biggest flow-control challenges, customers worldwide rely on the product lines, engineering, project management and service expertise of…From Flowserve – Sat, 23

Our HR operations/shared services teams are the engine of HR – they ensure that our colleague lifecycle runs smoothly, and that our service and performance…From

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE