[Article mis à jour le 3 novembre 2023 à 15h15] MAIF was condemned by the Compiègne industrial tribunal for having dismissed an employee who had been controlled by internal software.
A renowned insurer, MAIF was recently condemned by the industrial tribunal of Compiègne, after having removed Alice from its workforce, dismissed for “serious misconduct”. The company had justified the separation based on readings from internal software which monitored the employee’s actions in its call center.
This surveillance, which goes against the recommendations of the CNIL (which also extends to surveillance microphones), pushed the courts to reclassify the action as “dismissal without real and serious cause”. Let’s see what was the reasoning and the mistake of the MAIF.
Surveillance at work, when software hides reality
The case between MAIF and Alice highlights a crucial question: does your employer have the right to monitor you using software without informing you? Alice was fired for “serious misconduct” after MAIF management used data from internal software to prove that she had hung up on customers calling to report claims or follow up on compensation files.
Well, it’s never very nice to hang up on people in distress, but Alice’s lawyer pointed out that the employees had never been informed of the surveillance carried out by the software, which goes to the against the directives of the CNIL, the data policeman. The latter requires that employees are clearly and completely informed when personal data concerning them is collected. In our case, the collection of personal data without consent appears to have been carried out in complete secrecy.
Now undergoing professional retraining, the complainant detailed her experience. She was informed of her dismissal for “serious misconduct” by a human resources representative, without having received any notice. If she admits to having hung up several times over a period of two months, she adds that she prioritized the management of files during a period of work overload. “ For several weeks, this person deliberately did not respond to several dozen calls from members (insured) seeking to contact MAIF to request assistance. “. Before this incident, Alice had the trust of her superiors and had even been made responsible for the center. As the MAIF tells us, it had “ in charge of managing calls and letters from members (insured) victims of bodily injury (injuries, accidents, death of loved ones, etc.) at the Compiègne management center “.
MAIF and customer relations (right of reply granted by Clubic):
“ MAIF places a central place on the quality of the service provided to its members. As a mutual insurance company, it is our duty to provide our members with a rapid, quality and attentive response, especially in a potential context of distress. We trust our employees to guarantee this quality requirement, on a daily basis, regardless of the communication channel used. In this specific case, the breaches observed were completely contrary to the fundamentals of MAIF’s relationship with its members. “.
A victory for the employee, the right to privacy at work respected
Even though she has recognized the facts », as the MAIF specifies, Alice took the initiative to contest her dismissal by bringing the matter before the Compiègne industrial tribunal. On October 20, 2023, the decision fell, and it was in his favor. The industrial tribunal advisors reclassified the dismissal as “dismissal without real and serious cause”, forcing the MAIF to pay Alice 40,000 euros in compensation. The decision is based on the Labor Code, which stipulates that employees must be informed of any collection of personal information concerning them.
Details from MAIF on the recording of exchanges:
“ As in all companies with customer service, the exchanges that our employees may have with our members may be recorded and subject to measurements (frequency, duration, etc.) for the purpose of improving the service. These procedures are known to employees as well as members informed during a telephone call of a possible recording of their conversation.
It is these recordings that led MAIF to observe abnormal and harmful behavior for the company and its members. “.
It was revealed that the surveillance software used by MAIF had been implemented without informing employees of its ability to collect personal data. The company’s works council had expressed its disagreement with the use of such data, as early as 2007. But the insurer nevertheless reserved the right to appeal and declared that it did not wish to comment on the council’s decision. industrial tribunal, nor other aspects of the case.
What does MAIF say about the sentence handed down?
“ The industrial tribunal which ruled on the case of this employee considered that all the conditions were not met for these recordings to be used in the context of a dismissal. Keen to align with the most demanding compliance standards, MAIF takes note of this point and has already started work to improve its procedures to make its tools even more transparent and more explicit in their use. towards its employees “.
But while MAIF advocates values of transparency and respect for the rights of its members, the use of surveillance software without prior information raises concerns. This decision could have implications for how companies monitor and manage their employees, particularly when those same companies use advanced surveillance technologies.
Source : The Parisian
11