Validity of security camera recordings obtained without the prior communication and consent of workers and the Works Council
This publication comments on the Judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (Social Division) No. 6779/2024 handed down on 23 September 2024. This judgment dismissed the appeal filed by the legal representation of an employee against the judgment handed down on 27 October 2023 by the Social Court 1 of Terrassa (Case 377/2022), confirming in full the appealed decision which dismissed the dismissal claim previously filed, declaring it to be justified. The case dealt with a case of justified disciplinary dismissal due to the theft of copper in a company that used security camera recordings to prove the theft. As we will see below, the validity of obtaining these images is questioned.
The company installed cameras in the electroplating section (where the copper buckets were stored) after detecting a high consumption of copper that did not correspond to the plant’s production level. Suspicion of theft by employees prompted this measure, with the aim of identifying those responsible.
The dismissed worker alleged that his right to privacy had been infringed as the company had installed the video surveillance cameras in the aforementioned galvanising section without informing the employees or the Works Committee. The appellant stated that his right to privacy and to his own image (enshrined in Article 18.1 of the Spanish Constitution) had been infringed, as the images were obtained without his prior knowledge and without his consent. He also added that there had been a violation of Article 89.1 of the Organic Law on the protection of personal data and guarantees of digital rights, which requires informing employees about video surveillance in the workplace: ‘employees shall inform workers or public employees and, where appropriate, their representatives, in advance, expressly, clearly and concisely, about this measure’.
The company argued that the measure was justified as they had noticed an anomalous consumption of copper in the face of reduced activity, adding that, as the cameras were not hidden, the impact on their privacy was diminished. They also stated that the company did have security cameras at the entrance, in the warehouse section, in the central corridor on the ground floor and at the entrance to the changing rooms.
The court analysed the possible collision between the employer’s right to monitor the activity of workers (Article 20.3 of the Workers’ Statute) and the employee’s right to privacy (Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution).
According to the court, although there was no express notice in the plating area, the cameras were visible from the ground, so their presence was not completely covert or ‘surprising’. In the court’s view, the measure was suitable, as it was adequate to achieve the objective of discovering the person responsible for the thefts; necessary, as, given the circumstances, there was no less invasive measure that could provide the same effectiveness in identifying those responsible; and proportionate, as the benefits of the measure outweighed the harm to the worker’s privacy.
Therefore, the High Court of Justice upheld the judgement of the Labour Court, which had declared the dismissal to be justified, granting validity to the recordings obtained. The judgement confirms the balance between the rights of company control and the fundamental rights of workers, validating non-concealed surveillance in work environments to prevent crime, provided that it complies with the requirements of suitability, necessity and proportionality.
Laura de Dalmases
Internal Investigations Department of Molins Defensa Penal.