Introducing into evidence images obtained by video surveillance cameras is valid even without having previously and expressly informed the employee of their installation for work monitoring purposes because
i) the employee had made irregular cash movements which triggered the internal fraud control (sufficient suspicions) and
ii) they knew there were cameras, because they were located in the working area with the corresponding informative sign.
Additionally,
i) the measure was necessary , because there were no other less restrictive means to protect privacy without warning the employee, which would have made the action of the company useless and,
ii) if any client is aware that the surveillance system may be used against them, any employee must be aware as well.
You can read the full article (Supreme Court 1/14/25/ here.
Please feel free to contact álvarez lentner for any further information or legal advise regarding this matter.
