![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Court decided that Article 8 was engaged as covert video surveillance in the workplace is a considerable intrusion into an employee’s private life as an employee is contractually obliged to report for work and cannot avoid being filmed. ![]() The employees won in Strasbourg and were awarded €4,000 each plus costs and expenses. After their claims for unfair dismissal in the Spanish Courts were rejected, they complained to the European Court of Human Rights that the covert surveillance had breached their right of privacy under Article 8. Several employees were covertly filmed stealing or aiding thefts by customers and co-workers and were sacked. Hidden video cameras were installed (without any warning) to detect theft by employees. The store manager noticed significant discrepancies between stock levels and actual sales – up to €20,000 worth of stock disappearing each month. In the recent case of Lopez Ribalda and others v Spain, the European Court of Human Rights considered whether an employer’s decision to install hidden video cameras to monitor suspected workplace theft by a number of supermarket cashiers violated the cashiers’ right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |