Categories: Insights, Case Law


29 May 2017

Installation of video cameras requires the union authorization or an administrative permit

The Court of Cassation, criminal division, with judgement No. 22148/2017, ruled once again on the possibility for the employer to install video cameras without implementing the union directive as per art. 4 of Law No. 300/70. In the case in hand, the Sole Director of a company decided to install at a local subsidiary a video surveillance system that consisted of two video cameras connected through the Wi-Fi and ADSL network to a monitor with which it was possible to monitor the work of employees. The Sole Director did not enter into a specific union agreement for it (nor he requested an administrative permit) but informed the employees about it and they authorized the monitoring performed by the employer. After the proceedings filed against the Sole Director, the latter was sentenced to pay a fine of 600 euro pursuant to article 38 of the Workers’ Charter. In particular, the Court of Cassation identified as unlawful the behaviour of the employer due to the fact that art. 4 of the Workers’ Charter has the goal of protecting a collective asset and not an individual one. For this reason, an employee, not having contractual authority equal to that of the employer, cannot authorize the latter to perform specific actions without prior authorization of the union representatives where expressly established by the law. Therefore, the Court of Cassation confirmed once again that the need to install equipment – whenever such equipment is installed to perform remote monitoring of the work activity – be preceded by an agreement between the employer and union representatives of the workers or, lacking an agreement, by a permit issued by an administrative authority. Otherwise the installation in question is unlawful and will give rise to criminal sanctions.

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

8 Apr 2026

Management of corporate email after termination of employment: the limits according to the Italian Data Protection Authority

The Italian Data Protection Authority (i.e. “Garante per la protezione dei dati personali”) has once again provided guidance on how employers should manage corporate email accounts after the…

8 Apr 2026

Oral dismissal: the burden of proof on the employee

With order no. 4077 of 23 February 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of oral dismissal, holding that an employee challenging the termination of the employment…

8 Apr 2026

DID YOU KNOW THAT… incompatibility between colleagues may justify the transfer of an employee? 

The Italian Supreme Court, with order no. 4198 of 25 February 2026, held that an employee’s transfer may be lawfully implemented also in the presence of a situation…

7 Apr 2026

The boundary between rest and inactivity in the management of working hours (AIDP – HR Online, 7 April 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Alesia Hima)

In the organizational language of companies, terms such as “breaks,” “waiting times,” or “downtime” are often used. In operational practice, these expressions tend to be treated almost as…

17 Mar 2026

Equal pay: green light for the decree on pay equality and wage transparency (People are People, 16 March 2026 – Claudia Cerbone, Martina De Angeli)

Claudia Cerbone and Martina De Angeli, professionals at the De Luca & Partners firm, author this article dedicated to the draft legislative decree approved last February 5 by…

10 Mar 2026

The transfer of the employee is lawful when there is incompatibility with the company environment (Camera di Commercio Italo-Francese, 10 March 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 4198 of 25 February 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) – Labour Section – reaffirmed that a situation of environmental incompatibility may justify…