One resident told anonymously on the social network that he works in a simple factory where all the foremen and apprentices are monitored by video cameras and intensively followed during work.
According to him, the video cameras should be there in case of any accident etc. and the video cameras should be monitored by the security personnel, not the authorities, according to him.
“And watching, and scolding, and brazen, and looking for you through the cameras. He calls and asks: where are you, because I don’t see you anywhere in the cameras.
And that’s not the only reason I don’t like it. Tired of being followed and the feeling that someone is constantly behind you,” complained the employee.
Employees must be informed
The State Data Protection Inspectorate (VDAI) identified that there are various means of employee monitoring and control on the market: video surveillance, location determination, monitoring of employee actions or devices used, etc.
The inspection drew attention to the fact that when using, for example, the employer’s resources (computers, e-mail, Internet connection, printer, etc.) during work, the monitoring of the employee’s actions in itself is not considered a violation, if this monitoring is carried out in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). requirements.
According to VDAI, one of the main requirements for the employer is to properly and timely inform all employees about why and how specifically they will be monitored.
For example, in which premises and for what period of time video or audio data will be collected and stored, for what purposes they will be used, etc.
Arvydas Aranauskas, a lawyer at the Nexus law firm, added that employees must be informed of all this information in a signed form.
And this information must be freely available to employees: either everyone must receive a copy of the information, or it must be in a place accessible to all employees.
“The employer should also not forget to publicly display information about video surveillance. Usually it is a table or a sticker.
This table must indicate the purpose of video surveillance, who is the processor of the collected video data, how long the data is stored, and the contact information of the data processor,” the lawyer said.
When is surveillance justified and when is it questionable?
A. Aranauskas indicated that video surveillance can only be carried out after assessing that the employer’s interest is higher than the employee’s right to private life.
VDAI added that the proportionality of monitoring measures must also be assessed – employers must choose monitoring measures that protect the privacy of employees the most.
Thus, data processing must be carried out only by such means, only to such an extent and only in cases where it is absolutely necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose.
The inspection explained that the legality of monitoring measures depends on the circumstances of the specific case.
For example, video surveillance in a manufacturing plant working with high-risk sources to ensure worker safety could be considered a proportionate measure.
On the other hand, video surveillance in areas where employees expect privacy, such as break rooms, etc., raises questions about the proportionality of such surveillance.
“In the situation you mentioned, there are doubts as to whether the employer’s continuous monitoring of employees in the premises of the production company meets the above-mentioned proportionality requirements.”
It is also not clear whether the employer, before starting video surveillance of employees, implemented the obligation set by the GDPR to inform employees about it, but this can be established during a detailed investigation, after filing a complaint,” VDAI said.
Employees should not be monitored by cameras
A. Aranauskas drew attention to the fact that video surveillance is possible only after establishing a legal and defined goal.
And the goals must be specific, detailed, unambiguous and expressed in an easily understandable form.
The lawyer added that once the purpose is determined, the data collected about the employees could not be processed or used for other purposes.
He emphasized that only a person authorized by the employer who needs such access to perform their duties should have access to the videos.
It is also mandatory to determine the duration of video storage, depending on the purpose of video surveillance. And the storage duration of the videos must be specifically defined by the number of days.
“In the case you refer to, it is not clear what purpose of video surveillance the employer has provided for in its data protection policy.
However, if it is intended that the image is monitored for the purposes of employee safety or property security, video cameras should not be used to control the activities of employees,” the interviewer explained.
The VDAI indicated that more extensive information on the protection of employees’ personal data can be found in the inspectorate’s newly prepared guidelines for employees.
She noted – if employees believe that their rights to the protection of their personal data are being violated, they have the right to file a complaint with the VDAI.
There are different ways to track employees
According to A. Aranauskas, the tracking tools used are diverse, and as technology develops, their choice is expanding.
The lawyer identified that the more common means of tracking are the tracking of company cars.
“In the past, the monitoring of the employee’s computer screen was more common, but as employers are increasingly interested in personal data protection, this measure is used less frequently, as it is extremely difficult to maintain a balance between the proportionality of this measure and the legitimate interest of the employer,” said the interviewer.
He did not hide that there are cases when e-mail used for work activities of employees is read, telephone activity is monitored, and even telephone conversations are recorded.
A lawyer cited a case in the United Kingdom where an employer monitored employees’ phones, e-mails. emails, browsing history to determine whether employees are using employer-owned devices too often for personal purposes.
According to him, the court clarified that collecting and storing personal information without the employee’s knowledge limits a person’s right to privacy.
And the employee’s right to private life and protection of personal data does not disappear when the employee uses the employer’s work tools.
Checked correspondence and installed secret cameras
A. Aranauskas mentioned a case in Romania, when an employee was fired because correspondence for personal purposes was recorded during his monitoring.
This was also a violation, since the employee was not informed, the purpose of monitoring the employee’s correspondence was not clear.
It was also not clear whether the objective could be achieved by means that were less restrictive of the employee’s privacy.
And in Spain, according to the lawyer, one shopping center installed video surveillance cameras, some of them visible, others hidden, because the aim was to find out the losses incurred.
When the footage revealed that the mall employees were stealing items, they were fired:
“The European Court of Human Rights found that, despite the fact that the employer did not inform the store employees about the secret cameras directed at the cash registers, the employees’ right to privacy was not violated because the cameras were directed at public and specific places in the store.”
