The Legality of Workplace Geolocation
Knowing that your company knows where you are every minute of your workday can cause discomfort and raise doubts about its legality. However, courts have been clarifying this area for some time. A recent ruling by the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias has shed light on these issues with remarkable clarity.
Case Overview: The Elevator Technician
The case revolves around an elevator maintenance technician who used a time control app that recorded not only his schedule but also the exact location from which he clocked in. What seemed like a standard procedure became the focal point of a disciplinary dismissal confirmed by the courts.
Schedule Control with Advanced Features. The technician’s role required him to mark the start and end of his workday using a corporate mobile phone app. This app was designed to log clock-ins from the location of each assignment. The company monitored routes daily, insisting that check-ins occur at client locations rather than elsewhere.
Investigation and Findings
The technician’s clock-in records soon raised suspicions. Within a month, the company identified 11 instances of clock-ins from the employee’s home during work hours. Instead of completing his last assignment at the customer’s site, the technician ended his workday at home.
Notices, Warnings, and Dismissal
The company took a measured approach before issuing a dismissal. They provided several internal warnings, reminding the technician about the app’s functionality and pointing out the irregularities. Despite these warnings, the employee continued to clock in from home, leading the company to conclude that the agreed work schedule was breached.
Ultimately, this culminated in a disciplinary dismissal, with the Social Chamber of the TSJA confirming that the use of geolocation was appropriate evidence in this case.
Legal Framework
The ruling from the TSJA originates from Article 20.3 of the Workers’ Statute, which allows employers to adopt surveillance measures deemed necessary to verify compliance with workers’ obligations. Given the mobile nature of the technician’s job, the time control system with geolocation was justified.
Geolocation Regulations
Organic Law 3/2018 on Data Protection (LOPDGDD) specifically outlines regulations for geolocation systems. Article 90 requires employers to provide clear information regarding these systems, including their purpose and scope. In this case, the technician was aware of how the application worked, and it only recorded location data when in use.
Considering these laws, the TSJA determined that the company operated within legal bounds, utilizing a proportional tool for legitimate labor purposes and communicating effectively with the employee.
Clarifying Work Time Regulations
Article 34.5 of the Workers Statute states that working time is calculated based on an employee being at their workplace at the start and end of their shift. This introduces an important distinction: effective working time begins when the employee is operationally available.
Exceptions to the Rule
The Supreme Court has recognized exceptions, particularly for companies lacking a defined physical space. In such cases, an employee’s home may serve as the starting point for their workday. This exception does not apply to the technician’s case, as he had a designated workplace.
Conclusion
In summary, while employee privacy is crucial, companies retain the right to monitor and enforce compliance with work schedules, especially in roles requiring mobility. The ruling from Asturias serves as a precedent, affirming that geolocation can be a valid method for enforcing workplace responsibilities.
Image | Unsplash (Kevin Grieve)