Constitutional Court (TC) to approve using a company’s records to justify the dismissal of an employeewhen taken into account worker’s rights are not violated It is on the same line as enshrined in the Constitution, pronounced in various decisions of the Supreme Court.
The Court of Assurance decided that this matter, this matter, Entry into force of the organic law on data protection images taken by a security camera installed for use in a company can be included in our doctrine. under disciplinary action. In this particular case, the employee was fired after being verified thanks to the cameras. the company delivered its products to a third party and hid the money.
In the sentence accessed by this newspaper, the Constitutional Court Annulled a decision of the Basque Country’s Supreme Court of Justice (TSJPV) In October 2020, it upheld the worker’s appeal against the dismissal declaration of origin. On the contrary, the Basque Supreme Court’s Social Department understood that the dismissal should be declared unjustified by the facts. it was based on illegal evidence: recording from a company security camera.
What there was no evidence that the worker was informed the processing of this data for disciplinary use., most The exemplary ruling determined that the images were invalidated as evidence. When the appeal was found inadmissible by the Supreme Court, the company, realizing that TSJ had no other decision to oppose the Basque decision, went to the Constitutional Court to defend the validity of the test and defended the validity of the test, arguing that it was “one”. to confirm a punctual and obvious fact, and in these cases, it is sufficient for the worker to be aware of the existence of the video surveillance system without the need for more detailed and specific information, in accordance with the constitution and European jurisprudence”.
Thus, the invalidity of the test was based on the violation of a specific article of the Law on Protection of Personal Data No. 89.1. the mere existence of generic posters announcing the video surveillance system was insufficient in this particular case, to comply with the information obligation justifying workers’ control.
After examining the appeal, the majority opinion of the Constitutional Court concludes that the decisions of the Basque Country TSJ are valid. prevented the appellant company from using a test stated that there was no reason for termination, but that, in accordance with what was stated in this decision, the verification of the decisive elements of the dismissal decided by the company is fully valid. TC also agrees with the Prosecutor’s Office that the use of the recording complies with the jurisprudence of this court and the European Court of Human Rights, and rejects the violation of workers’ rights.
Measure provided
for CT, The establishment of control systems responds to a legitimate aim within the framework of labor relations. It is about verifying compliance with the duties inherent in any contractual relationship. In this particular case, they were also proportional because the cameras they were not placed in a resting, leisure or reserved nature, In workplaces where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy but open to public attention.
It was also visible to both workplace workers and the general public, and the system was not generalized or used indefinitely or to conduct a prospective investigation, but to confirm the presence of possible irregular behavior of the employee detected the previous day. For all these reasons, the guarantee authority considers that the Basque court violated the company’s right to use the relevant means of evidence and a process that includes all guarantees.
special vote
However, five magistrates from the progressive sector, who voted separately, felt unable to confirm that the Basque TSJ’s decision was unlawful and “arbitrary or unreasonable in its choice, interpretation and application”. Your law.
Therefore, in their opinion, in the particular case of this company, the use of the video surveillance system was insufficient to comply with the task of verifying the information “because the company did not continue to regulate that workers and/or their representatives were not given specific information after a layoff similar to the one accused five years ago”.
For the dissenting magistrates, the majority opinion on which the decision is based “cannot be ignored and does not take into account the regulation aimed at promoting the right to personal data protection. requires a re-evaluation of both the European Court of Human Rights and its case-law. to establish the current standard of protection of the right”.