In two recent decisions, employers have been reminded of the limits of the use of CCTV systems in the workplace.
Following a complaint made by employees, the CNIL made an onsite investigation of a rather small company of eight employees specializing in the supply of IT equipment for healthcare professionals. This company had implemented no less than eight cameras with microphones and speakers on its premises; seven of them were placed in rooms not available to the public—the workshop; the employees’ offices, where the cameras focused on the computer screens and the employees themselves; the meeting room; the kitchen, and the corridor leading to the offices.
These devices had actually been notified to the CNIL, as required by French data protection law. However, the CNIL found in the course of its investigation that, contrary to what had been specified in the notification form, the company did not use the CCTV to ensure the security of people and goods but to constantly monitor the activity of employees by watching and listening to them all day long.
The CNIL, in its findings, pointed not only to this diversion of purpose of the CCTV devices but also to their particularly disproportionate and intrusive use. It also noted, among others, the lack of retention policy for the recordings and the lack of notice to employees. This resulted in a formal notice from the CNIL to the employer to modify its devices within a given timeframe—here, six weeks. The CNIL decided to use its new power to publicize its decision because of the seriousness of the breach, although no sanction has been decided yet, since the so-called “litigation phase” before the CNIL will begin only if the company fails to comply within the allocated timeframe.
The Supreme Court also had to deal with the issue of diversion of purpose of a CCTV device. In order to control the working hours of its employees—cleaning staff working at a client’s site—a company had obtained from that client the recordings of its CCTV cameras and used them to verify at which time the employees came in and out and to make consistency checks with the entry logbook kept by the team manager.
On January 10, the Supreme Court (Social Chamber) considered such recordings as unlawful evidence. Indeed, the purpose of the clients’ CCTV system was to ensure the security of people and goods, not to monitor employees. Moreover, the concerned employees had not been informed of this CCTV system for monitoring purposes.
These two decisions show that, in France, the use of CCTV in the workplace is under stringent restrictions and must be handled with care to remain within acceptable limits.
