In a ruling dated 15 February 2024 (case reference: 3 Ca 625/23), the Nordhausen Labour Court ruled that deliberate, unprovoked video surveillance in the workplace constitutes a significant violation of the right to informational self-determination and the dignity of employees and can justify termination without notice.
Facts of the case
In August 2023, the plaintiff, a hairdressing business, brought an action for a declaratory judgement against the termination of an employee without notice.
In May 2023, the plaintiff had installed a video camera in the checkout area of the hairdressing salon, which recorded images and sound and transferred them directly to the employer’s mobile phone. Prior to this, the plaintiff had sent an email to all of its employees, including the defendant, stating that the reason for the installation was “increased acts of theft in retail and service businesses as well as extortion” and requesting consent for the installation. Contrary to the previous claims, however, the installation was carried out in order to be able to check discrepancies in the billing of fees by employees.
The defendant felt constantly monitored by the camera, which caused her mental stress and health problems. This led to her being unable to work on several occasions. In addition, the working environment and the negative working atmosphere at the plaintiff’s company impaired the defendant’s health, which is why she terminated the employment relationship without notice on 15 August 2023.
The plaintiff applied for a declaration that the defendant’s extraordinary dismissal was invalid and that the employment relationship continued to exist.
The court’s decision
The Nordhausen Labour Court ruled that the claim should be dismissed as unfounded.
Deliberate, unprovoked camera surveillance of employees by the employer was in itself suitable to justify extraordinary dismissal. The court also stated that the employer had only pretended to use the prevention of embezzlement as a reason for the video surveillance. Rather, the video camera had been installed solely to monitor the employees. Video surveillance for the exercise of domiciliary rights pursuant to Section 4 (1) No. 2 BDSG was therefore ruled out. There was also no consent of the employees required pursuant to Section 26 (2) BDSG. Furthermore, the plaintiff had not explained which specific factual indications could support a suspicion of the alleged criminal offence. This constituted deliberate camera surveillance of employees by the plaintiff without cause, which is prohibited under Section 26 (1) BDSG. This constituted an “important reason” within the meaning of Section 626 (1) BGB.
The plaintiff had thus violated the right of its employees, including the defendant, to informational self-determination. A warning prior to the defendant’s extraordinary termination was unnecessary, as the plaintiff had deliberately carried out the video surveillance without cause and had not been dissuaded from doing so by the refusal of its employees’ consent.
The court’s weighing of interests, taking into account the principle of proportionality, was in favour of the defendant’s interest in the immediate termination of the employment relationship.
The defendant had also complied with the time limit pursuant to Section 626 (2) BGB, as the video surveillance was to be regarded as a continuous offence and had lasted until the day of termination.
Conclusion
Employers are obliged to protect the privacy and informational self-determination of their employees. Disregarding these principles can not only have consequences under data protection law, but can also result in employees being entitled to terminate the employment relationship without notice. The judgement therefore encourages employees to defend themselves against unauthorised monitoring measures.