Our Client\u2019s Position<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nOur client acknowledged that his Employers had first processed the CCTV recordings during the security investigation, but he claimed that they had further processed the CCTV recordings for a second time in order to support a disciplinary investigation in relation to the taking of unauthorised breaks.<\/p>\n
In essence, our client argued the first processing of CCTV recordings during the security investigation was legitimate and in compliance with his Employer\u2019s Data Protection Policy. The second processing of the CCTV recordings in the disciplinary proceedings was illegitimate and in contravention of their Data Protection Policy<\/p>\n
Our client argued that the Data used by his Employers in the disciplinary proceedings (the CCTV recordings) had been further processed in a manner which was incompatible with their Data Protection Policy and it constituted a breach of GDPR and the Data Protection Acts 1988-2018, namely Section 2(1)(c)(ii) of the 1988 Data Protection Act.<\/p>\n
The Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) investigated our client\u2019s claim and found against him.<\/p>\n
The Data Protection Commissioner\u2019s Position<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nThe DPC is an Independent national authority that is responsible for the upholding, enforcing, and monitoring Data Protection Legislation in Ireland.<\/p>\n
The DPC argued that the processing of CCTV recordings by the Data Controller (The Employers) was for security purposes arising out of the carving graffiti in the canteen.<\/p>\n
They claimed that the taking of unauthorised breaks at an unauthorised location was a serious and bona fide security issue and the disciplinary proceedings arose out of and was directly connected to the security issue.<\/p>\n
In essence, the DPC\u2019 legal argument was that the CCTV recordings had not been further processed during the disciplinary proceedings. The CCTV recordings were processed for the security investigation only and the Data Controller\u2019s Data Protection Policy permitted the processing of personal data for the purpose of preventing crime and promoting staff security.<\/p>\n
As such, there was no breach of Section 2(1)(c)(ii) of the 1988 Data Protection Act.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Decisions<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\nThe DPC Decision<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nOur client lodged an official complaint with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. As outlined above, our client argued that the processing of CCTV recordings to monitor staff and for disciplinary proceedings was not in compliance with his Employer\u2019s data protection policy and it breached his data protection rights under the GDPR and the Data Protection Acts.<\/p>\n
The DPC found that the viewing of the CCTV recordings took place exclusively for the security purpose and the images collected were processed in compliance with the Data Controller\u2019s Data Protection Policy. They held there was no breach of our client\u2019s rights under Section 2(1)(c)(ii) of the 1988 Data Protection Act.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Circuit Court Decision<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nOur client appealed the DPC\u2019s decision to the Circuit Court pursuant to section 26 of the Data Protection Acts. Our client argued that the DPC erred in fact and\/ or law when it determined that his Employer\u2019s had not violated Section of 2 of the Data Protection Acts.<\/p>\n
The Circuit Court dismissed our client\u2019s appeal, and the Court upheld the DPC decision.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The High Court Decision<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nOur client brought a further appeal on a point of law pursuant to section 26(3)(b) of the 1988 Data Protection Act. Complex legal issues were raised at the appeal hearing before Ms Justice Hyland.<\/p>\n
In a landmark decision, Judge Hyland allowed our client\u2019s appeal against the decision of the Circuit Court . The basis for this decision was that there was no evidence for the conclusion that the use of the CCTV footage or material was for security purposes.<\/p>\n
Judge Hyland further held that the DPC had made an error of law in holding that no further processing took place within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(ii) of the 1988 Act.<\/p>\n
Judge Hyland perfected an Order which set aside the conclusions of the DPC and upheld our client\u2019s argument that there had been a breach of his Data Protection rights pursuant to Section 2(1)(c)(ii) of the 1988 Data Protection Act.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nThe Court of Appeal<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nThe DPC sought to set aside the Judgement of Ms Justice Hyland in the High Court and they lodged an appeal to the decision in April 2020.<\/p>\n
A three-judge panel presided over the Appeal Hearing on the 16th<\/sup> June 2021 and a decision is awaited.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u0418\u0437\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435, \u044d\u0442\u043e\u0442 \u0442\u0435\u0445\u0442 \u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u0435\u043d \u0442\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043a\u043e \u0432 “\u0410\u043c\u0435\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0410\u043d\u0433\u043b\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439”. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.CASE STUDY — Data Protection Rights and the processing of CCTV recordings in the workplace CCTV Cameras are a daily feature in our […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[17],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=801"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":803,"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/801\/revisions\/803"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=801"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawlorkiernan.ie\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}