The employer may resort to the use of technologies, such as video surveillance, as long as it is carried out in compliance with its powers of prevention of occupational risks, for which it will have the obligation to ensure that these behaviors do not affect fundamental rights, such as the violation of intimate or reserved spaces.
The Constitutional Court reached this criterion in STC Exp. No. 02208-2017-PA / TC, where it also specified that employers have the duty to identify, evaluate and prevent occupational hazards to which workers could be exposed by implementing the necessary mechanisms to ensure safety conditions in the workplace, so that, within this framework, it is possible to implement the use of technologies such as video surveillance.
The Constitutional Court ruled on an amparo claim filed by the Sindicato de Obreros P y A D’Onofrio SA against Nestlé Perú SA. In it, it was requested to cancel the laying of pipes for video camera networks in the production areas, warehouses and factory cameras, in which its affiliates work. They argued that the installation sought to exercise total and permanent control during working hours, which is a violation of the right to dignity, personal privacy and health.
The Constitutional Court took as its basis article 9 of the Labor Productivity and Competitiveness Law, which recognizes managerial, supervisory and disciplinary powers in the employer. For this reason, in any employment relationship the worker must comply with the obligations assumed, and the employer must monitor and sanction the breach of said obligations.
However, the High Court specified that the audit is not a discretionary power that justifies arbitrary treatment, since its limit is established in Article 23 of the Constitution, which establishes that “no labor relationship can limit the exercise of rights constitutional laws, or ignore or lower the dignity of the worker.
After developing this analysis, the Collegiate accredited that the company did comply with previously communicating to the workers the security measures that would be implemented; and that the installation of the video surveillance cameras was carried out in visible spaces for operational needs and in strategic environments that allow the company to activate security mechanisms and implement improvements during its production process.
For all the foregoing, the Constitutional Court considered that the installation of the cameras does not correspond to intimate or reserved spaces for workers, which is why the claim was declared unfounded.
Was this news useful to you? You can find more specialized information like this in the magazines of Gaceta Constitucional & Procesal Constitucional or in the subscriber platform.
You can review the full Judgment HERE.