The third criminal section of the Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 38882/2018, reiterates the concept that "returning employees to work even with their consent is absolutely prohibited."
The defendant's defense argued that this measure was necessary for two reasons: workplace safety (following the assault on an employee by drunken youths) and protection of property (following thefts suffered by the premises). It also argued that there was consent from the workers and that in a small business like a bar-ice cream shop it was sufficient to legitimately film the activity of customers and employees. The Supreme Court clarified, however, that filming can only be authorized if there is an agreement between the employer and the workers' union representatives. If no agreement is reached, the employer can request an authorization from the Territorial Labor Directorate. In the absence of an agreement and authorization from the administrative authority, the conduct will be illegitimate and, therefore, punishable. This is because workers are weak subjects and any consent, given in any form, at the time of signing the contract, would be flawed as it would be granted in order to obtain employment. Therefore, the workers' failure to oppose the installation of video cameras does not have any exculpatory value.
The defendant's defense argued that this measure was necessary for two reasons: workplace safety (following the assault on an employee by drunken youths) and protection of property (following thefts suffered by the premises). It also argued that there was consent from the workers and that in a small business like a bar-ice cream shop it was sufficient to legitimately film the activity of customers and employees. The Supreme Court clarified, however, that filming can only be authorized if there is an agreement between the employer and the workers' union representatives. If no agreement is reached, the employer can request an authorization from the Territorial Labor Directorate. In the absence of an agreement and authorization from the administrative authority, the conduct will be illegitimate and, therefore, punishable. This is because workers are weak subjects and any consent, given in any form, at the time of signing the contract, would be flawed as it would be granted in order to obtain employment. Therefore, the workers' failure to oppose the installation of video cameras does not have any exculpatory value.
Cass.38882-2018
