Last April, the Municipality of Madignano was sanctioned by the Italian Data Protection Authority for having installed a video surveillance system inside its headquarters in violation of national and European provisions on the protection of personal data and the Workers’ Statute. This activity was deemed to be an unlawful processing of personal data and the Guarantor issued a fine of 3,000 euros.
The Italian Data Protection Authority has imposed a fine of three thousand euros on the Municipality of Madignano for having used the images recorded by a camera placed near the employee attendance detection systems in order to accuse an employee of non-compliance with working hours and the violation of her official duties.
Following this complaint, the employee submitted a report to the Guarantor pursuant to art. 144 of the Privacy Code as it considered that the surveillance system had been installed: i) in the absence of an appropriate information on the methods and purposes of processing the recorded images; ii) in the absence of the guarantees provided for by the Workers’ Statute (trade union agreement or authorization from the competent territorial office).
Upon receipt of the employee’s report, the Guarantor Authority sent a request for information to the Municipality and, subsequently, proceeded to notify the Municipality of the initiation of the procedure for the adoption of the appropriate measure.
The Municipality of Madignano defended itself by declaring that the installation of the camera had been authorized by the Territorial Labor Inspectorate. In addition, the Municipality initially stated that the purpose of the processing of the data collected through the video surveillance system was to protect company assets and the safety of employees, then with defensive briefs it stated that it corresponded instead to the protection of public safety, the prevention and detection of crimes as the video surveillance system had been installed precisely following an assault against an assistant and the assessor in the buildings of the Municipality. Therefore, the municipal administration considered that the interested parties were not public employees but the whole community and, consequently, the Workers’ Statute was not applicable.
The Guarantor Authority noted that the Municipality, during the course of the investigation, had argued contradictory theses about the processing purposes pursued with the installation of the plant and that, in the treatment in question, art. 4 of Law no. 300/1970 as “video surveillance in work contexts, both private and public, can only be justified in compliance with the guarantees provided for by the applicable national law, in the absence of which it constitutes an unlawful interference in the private life of the employee, pursuant to art. 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights“.
In addition, the Garante objected to the absence of information on the processing of personal data relating to the video surveillance system to be provided to the interested parties (i.e. workers and visitors to the offices of the Municipality) that contained the essential information elements pursuant to art. 13 of the GDPR.
In conclusion, the Garante has issued a fine of three thousand euros for unlawful processing of personal data, both for the lack of adequate guarantees relating to the video surveillance system and for the lack of adequate information. This reminds us, once again, how a correct management of privacy and labor law obligations is essential, especially in the field of video surveillance.
Authors
