A Dutch court ruled in favor of a dismissed employee for not having kept the webcam on during smart workinggoing so far as to say that forcing employees to do so violates human rights. The judges think that the obligation is “in conflict with compliance with the worker privacy “.
Webcam for smart working, it cannot be forced to always keep it on
The American company Chetu, which deals with business software, has hired an employee in the Netherlands for telemarketing. And he asked the worker to log on to his own webcam durante lo smart working (nine hours a day) and keep a screen sharing programor. The employee refused to do so, resulting in his dismissal for “refusal to work” and “insubordination”.
The worker then appealed to the court of his country, which proved him right. In the verdict, the judges talk about privacy and what webcam surveillance is like a violation of human rights. Keeping the webcam turned off therefore cannot be a motivation for firing an employee.
Continuous surveillance
The employee, whose name was not disclosed, tried to explain his objection to the company. “I don’t feel comfortable being monitored for nine hours a day by a video camera. This is an invasion of my privacy and makes me uncomfortable. This is why my camera is off ”. The employee also notes that the company could “already monitor all my activities on the laptop and I’m sharing my screen ”.
In response, the company fired him. In the state of Chetu, Florida, i “At-Will” layoffs (without just cause) they are perfectly legal. But in the Netherlands the situation is different: the employee sued and won.
In fact, the court explained that “monitoring through the video camera for eight hours a day is not proportionate and not allowed in the Netherlands “. And he underlines, citing the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: “the video surveillance of an employee in the workplace, whether hidden or not, must be considered as a major intrusion of the employee’s private life. […] and therefore constitutes an interference with the message of article 8 ″ of the Convention, which protects the ‘Private and family life’ of individuals.
Compensation for the employee
The Dutch court therefore decided that Chetu will have to pay the employee the costs of the trial, the arrears on salary, a $ 50,000 fine and must also remove the employee’s non-competition clause. Also will have to compensate the worker of the unused vacation days and all the other compensations to which he is entitled.
According to the Dutch publication NL Times, Chetu was not present at the trial. And it remains to be seen whether he will want to appeal this decision. But one fact remains: at least in Europe, force a smart working employee to keep the webcam on all day violates your right to privacy.