The Court of Cassation validated the installation, without warning employees, of video surveillance cameras in companies. They are no longer obliged to inform employees if the reason is considered valid.
On the subject of video surveillance in the workplace, two philosophies clash: that which deplores the spying of employees on the one hand, and that which finds such a practice normal on the other. The Court of Cassation, the highest French court, delivered a ruling on February 14, 2024, which is decisive regarding the installation of video surveillance devices in companies. It sets a precedent by allowing an employer to install such a device, without having to first inform its employees. How did we get here ?
The employee was fired for having been caught, via video surveillance, stealing from her pharmacy
It all started with the story of an employee, a cashier in a pharmacy who, dismissed for serious misconduct, decided to contact the industrial tribunal to contest the termination, request its cancellation and obtain damages. . The lady was removed from her business due to thefts, spotted using video surveillance. It should be noted that she had not been informed of the device.
It was then before the court of appeal that the plaintiff tried to win her case. But the court rejected his request, telling him that the video surveillance system was essential to produce proof of theft from product stocks. Its use was even proportionate, in the eyes of the court.
The employee therefore completed the procedure by appealing to the Court of Cassation. The high court definitively ruled on the subject, rejecting the appeal. What was the exact justification?
The judge justifies the use of surveillance cameras for the preservation of stocks
According to the Court of Cassation, the employer can absolutely install a video surveillance device in a store, a boutique, a company, without having previously informed its employees. But on one condition: that this is proportionate to the aim pursued, in this case the protection of the company’s assets.
This was the case here, since the point of the surveillance cameras was to verify (or obtain proof) that no one is stealing from the pharmacy’s stock. As for the question of the attack on the personal life of the employee, the Court of Cassation also rejected this argument. She considered it proportionate here, insofar as the famous recordings were only seen by the boss of the company, and this within a limited period of time.
The decision of the Court of Cassation of February 14, 2024 therefore confirms the legality of the installation of video surveillance devices in companies, provided that their use is proportionate and necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of the employer. Case law provides real, important guidelines for employers and employees regarding the implementation of surveillance measures in the professional context.
Source : Legifrance
5