Employee receives 15,000 Euro compensation for permanent video surveillance

In a recently published judgement from 28 May, the Hamm Regional Labour Court (LAG) has strengthened the rights of employees against spying by employers. The 18th chamber ruled that an employee who had been subject to unauthorised video surveillance for almost two years was entitled to financial compensation of 15,000 Euro. It deemed the permanent surveillance of the workplace to be a serious violation of the plaintiff's general right of personality (case reference: 18 SLa 959/24).

The case concerned a production employee in a company that manufactures steel blocks. The defendant company monitored the 15,000 square metre production hall, the warehouse, connecting corridors and even offices with a total of 34 video cameras. Some of them recorded 24 hours a day in HD with zoom and real-time access, and the recordings were stored for at least 48 hours.

The plaintiff mainly worked on a peeling machine. Although he usually stood there with his back to the camera, his workplace was permanently monitored. As soon as he left his workplace to go to the toilets, the break room or the office, for example, he was inevitably also recorded from the front.

The recreation and sanitary rooms themselves were not monitored. However, the cameras could be used to monitor when and for how long the employee was on the way there. The surveillance complained of extended over a period of 22 months (January 2023 to October 2024).

Break times queried

The company justified the drastic measure with protection against theft and vandalism, as well as occupational safety. It also cited the tracking of machine breakdowns and the correct loading of materials as further reasons. The plaintiff, on the other hand, said he suffered from considerable pressure to perform and adapt. He felt that he was constantly being watched and reported that the managing director had also called employees unexpectedly and questioned them about their break times.

The LAG Hamm confirmed the opinion of the lower court, the Dortmund Labour Court, according to which the video surveillance was unlawful. According to the judgement, personal data is processed as part of the measure, meaning that it must therefore meet the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG).

The general clause on data processing contained in the employment contract was deemed ineffective by the judges, as the required voluntary nature of consent when concluding such a document is missing. The necessary information about the right of cancellation had also not been provided. According to the judgement, the monitoring was disproportionate and could not be justified by the employer's legitimate interests.

"Live surveillance" and extreme pressure

The LAG criticised that the company had not sufficiently substantiated the generalised claims of the risk of theft and manipulation. For many purposes, such as theft protection from the outside, monitoring the external area would have been a milder means. In addition, monitoring the entire hall, including the plaintiff's workplace, was not necessary to track machine breakdowns or to document loading. The judges also held that the defendant carried out the measure intentionally.

A claim for financial compensation under the German Civil Code (BGB) requires a serious, unlawful and culpable infringement of personal rights. The LAG Hamm considered this to be the case – not only due to the duration of the round-the-clock shadowing.

The HD technology used allowed "live monitoring" and the observation of faces and facial expressions, and was therefore very invasive. In addition, an "extremely high pressure to conform" was created, as the employees had to expect to be observed at all times. The defendant had also continued the disproportionate spying unchanged, although the plaintiff had complained about the undesirability and unlawfulness in a letter from a lawyer.

The judges consider the comparatively high sum of 15,000 Euro to be appropriate, as it should fulfil a satisfaction function for the plaintiff and dissuade the company from future violations. In contrast, the LAG dismissed the original action for injunctive relief, as the employment relationship between the parties had since ended and there was therefore no longer any risk of repetition. The chamber did not allow an appeal against the judgement. The Federal Labour Court would have to deal with a potential appeal.

(vbr)