Categories: Insights, Practice


1 May 2018

The operational instructions of the INL on audiovisual aids and other control instruments

The National Labour Inspectorate (“INL”), with its circular No. 5/2018, has given operational instructions on the problems concerning the installation and use of audiovisual aids and other control instruments. According to the INL, should any employees be filmed, the latter should take place as a rule accidentally and occasionally, but nothing prevents the direct shot of the employee, provided that there are reasons grounding the control, without introducing any conditions such as the ‘shot angle’ of the video camera or ‘the obscuring of the employee’s face’. Furthermore, according to the INL, it is not fundamental to specify the predetermined locating and the exact number of video cameras to be installed, without prejudice to the fact that the shots must be consistent and strictly connected with the reasons entitling the control and declared in the relevant request. The circular also dwells upon the justifying reason under article 4 of the Workers’ Statute as to the “protection of the company’s assets”, by stressing that the principles of lawfulness and exactness of the pursued aim, as well as of the respective proportionality, fairness and non-incidence, call for gradualness – as stated by the Italian Data Protection Authority – as to the extent and type of monitoring, which makes more invasive controls residual.  Always according to the INL, any remote access to the images ‘in real time’ must only be authorised in exceptional cases duly grounded. Last, but by no means least, the INL dwells upon the biometric recognition installed on the machines in order to prevent unauthorised parties from using it. This is considered a fundamental tool to “… do the job …” and, therefore, its installation may take place regardless, pursuant to paragraph 2 of article 4 of the Workers’ Statute, of both the agreement with the trade unions and of the authorisation administrative procedure foreseen by law.

 

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

30 Apr 2026

Webinar “Bonuses: What Do You Need to Know About Objectives?” – HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners

Yesterday, during our first webinar “HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners", the speakers Vittorio De Luca, Managing Partner, and Alessandra Zilla, Managing Associate at De Luca &…

27 Apr 2026

Gestione della posta elettronica aziendale dopo la cessazione del rapporto di lavoro: il Garante estende il diritto di accesso a tutte le mail della casella e-mail nominativa 

“Il lavoratore può accedere ai messaggi del proprio account e-mail aziendale e ai documenti presenti nel pc dopo la fine del rapporto di lavoro. Eventuali limitazioni devono essere…

27 Apr 2026

NASpI e dimissioni per trasferimento oltre 50km: per la Cassazione non basta la distanza, va provato l’inadempimento del datore di lavoro 

Con la recente ordinanza n. 10559 del 21 aprile 2026, la Corte di Cassazione si è pronunciata in tema di indennità di disoccupazione (NASpI) a seguito di dimissioni per giusta causa dovute a trasferimento del…

27 Apr 2026

Lo sai che… il patto di prova è nullo se le mansioni sono indicate in modo generico? 

Il Tribunale di Milano, Sezione Lavoro, con sentenza n. 683 del 3 aprile 2026, ha ribadito che il patto di prova è valido solo se contiene una specifica…

17 Apr 2026

Criminal penalties are being introduced for those who fail to protect remote workers (The Platform, 17 April 2026 – Vittorio De Luca e Martina De Angeli)

The provision amends Legislative Decree 81/2008 by introducing a new Article 3, paragraph 7-bis, which makes compliance with safety obligations conditional upon the delivery—at least annually—of a written…

15 Apr 2026

Dismissal deemed valid based on a message sent in a WhatsApp chat (Camera di Commercio Italo-Francese – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 7982 of March 31, 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section) held that a message sent within a private chat may constitute just cause for…