Quality assurance, resource planning, just-in-time processes: Large companies have many arguments and concepts for introducing targeted methods to manage, control, and improve internal workflows. This also contributes to economic success monitoring always permissible.
Here, it will be necessary to discuss whether the data processing is still necessary for the implementation of the employment relationship pursuant to Art. 26 (1) BDSG, on the basis of previously voluntarily granted consent (Art. 26 (2) GDPR or Art. 6 (1) S. 1 lit. a GDPR), or in the legitimate interest of the company pursuant to Art. 6 (1) S. 1 lit. f GDPR. As a rule, the latter legal basis will have to be us, which, although it has a broad scope of application, nevertheless also provides for a demonstrable balancing of interests. In this case, it will be necessary to examine the extent to which the company’s interest in planning, controlling, and optimizing internal processes, which is therefore primarily an economic interest, is offset by a legitimate interest of the individual data subjects (employees) in excluding this data processing. And precisely this legitimate interest of the data subjects can prevail if every activity is continuously record and evaluated, particularly when comparisons within the company are possible.
The Amazon case monitoring always permissible
In a recent case, the responsible State Commissioner for Data Protection (LfD) of Lower Saxony prohibit the company Amazon from using a system for “performance monitoring” which, among other things, requires the brazil business fax list affect employees to confirm every action in the warehouse “continuously” using a handheld scanner – and for the superiors to evaluate these entries using appropriate software and thus also monitor the speed of work.
The verdict
A few days ago, the court (VG Hannover, 09.02.2023, Ref. No.: 10 A 6199/20 ) overturn this order by the supervisory authority and thus initially ruled in favor of Amazon (see press release of the VG Hannover and the report by heise online ).
In the court’s opinion, creating an effective website taxonomy the data processing was cover . The legal basis of Section 26 (1) of the Federal Data Protection Act and was therefore lawful. It was therefore assum that this monitoring . Necessary for the performance of the employment relationship.
While the court recogniz, among other things, the pressure to monitor, it also highlight positive aspects of this system with its constant scanning, such as the associated feedback opportunities for employees and fair personnel decisions. It also stated that it “only” involves performance monitoring, which is also predictable and known.
A judgment with a signal effect?
What kind of signal does this ruling send? It remains to be seen whether the supervisor. Authority in Lower Saxony will appeal the albania business directory Hanover Administrative Court’s decision. The decisive factor for this decision will be the written. Reasons for the judgment, which are not yet available.