Labour Law Video Surveillance

The Hessian State Labor Court (judgment v. 25.10.2010, AZ: 7 SA 1586/09) has decided that the employer to pay compensation. The Hessian State Labor Court (judgment v. 25.10.2010, AZ: 7 SA 1586/09) has decided that the employer to pay compensation. The employer was sentenced to pay compensation by 7.000,–euro, because he constantly supervised an employee since June 2008 at their place of work with a video camera. The case: Opposite the entrance door of the offices of a Hesse branch of a nationwide active company the employer had installed a video camera, commercial employees focused not only on the input area, but in the foreground also on the workplace of the 24-year-olds. The employees claimed damages claims for infringement of privacy with its action.

The Labour Court sentenced the employer to pay a compensation of 15.000,–euros. The employers at the Hessian Landesarbeitsgericht has appealed against this judgment. The Decision of the Court of appeal: the appeal succeeded only in terms of the amount of compensation. The employer had himself defended in the process so that the camera was was not always in function and been attached only to the safety of employees, because there have been in the past for attacks on staff. Compensation of 7.000,–euro as reparation for moral rights infringement justified the court evaluated the intervention in the General personality right of the employee as disproportionate. So, an alignment of the camera only on the entrance would have been sufficient. It was irrelevant that the camera was not constantly function.

Because the uncertainty, whether or not, the camera actually record got exposed the employees a permanent adaptation and monitoring pressure, which she had to accept after she soon turned against the installation of the video camera. As a result, the Court saw this form of video surveillance as a serious and persistent violation of informational self-determination right. Lawyer explains Tobias Ziegler, lawyer specializing in labour law: the award of monetary compensation in case of such a serious violation of personality rights is based on the idea that without a compensation claim violations of dignity and honor of the people were often without sanctions with the result that the protection of the rights of personality would wither. On the compensation the point of view of the satisfaction of the victim in the foreground is regularly.” Background: The Federal Labor Court (BAG) was already dealing with similar cases. The BAG looks a significant intrusion into the protected fundamental rights of workers in the video surveillance. Depending on the case, this procedure can be also justified. It is always required a decision related to the circumstances of each case.