The Regional Administrative Court (i.e. “Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale,” or “TAR”) of Tuscany recently annulled the denial issued by the local labor inspectorate (i.e. “Ispettorato Territoriale del Lavoro” or “ITL”) concerning a company’s request to install additional surveillance cameras at the perimeter of its industrial site. The Court clarified that even outdoor areas where work activities occur only occasionally or intermittently still qualify as “workplaces” under Italian law.
The case originated from a request submitted by a company to the competent ITL — as provided by Article 4 of the Italian Worker Statute (Law 300/70) — whereby the company approached the Public Administration after failing to reach an agreement with the corporate trade union representatives. Specifically, the company’s request outlined that, despite the presence of an existing surveillance system installed along the perimeter of the corporate premises, there was still a need to install an additional nine cameras. These cameras were to be placed in a peripheral area of the industrial facility to monitor the proper disposal of waste in designated unloading areas — areas that were also used by external parties — in order to prevent risks to worker safety, fire hazards, environmental damage, and to protect the company’s assets.
The ITL’s denial was based on its classification of the areas as “workplaces” and the perceived disproportion of the measure, which was deemed inappropriate in relation to the risks involved.
The Court found the company’s appeal to be valid for the following reasons:
Other related insights:
Managing employee surveillance is a sensitive issue, especially with the rise of new technologies. Recent rulings from Italy’s Court of Cassation have clarified the legal boundaries surrounding this practice.
The role of Investigative Agencies
Employers may use private investigators to check potential employee misconduct, such as unapproved absences or misuse of leave. However, these investigations must be focused, proportional, and lawful, ensuring they do not interfere with an employee’s work duties.
Monitoring company devices
Employers may need to access employees’ devices, such as emails or laptops, especially when there is reasonable suspicion of misconduct. The Italian Supreme Court has recently clarified that checking an employee’s email is only permitted when there is concrete suspicion, and such checks must not be arbitrary or excessive.
Balancing business needs and employee privacy
It is essential to strike a balance between business needs and employee privacy. Surveillance must be justified, proportionate, and never indiscriminate. Employers must ensure they follow legal guidelines to avoid misuse of the information collected.
Best practices
By following these principles, employers can protect their business interests while respecting employee privacy.
Continue reading the full version published on Agenda Digitale.
AI in companies entails risks related to data security and the protection of know-how. Organizations need appropriate policies to ensure ethical and compliant use.
If an employee uses artificial intelligence systems – often generative – to carry out his or her work activities, he or she may, more or less consciously, share company know-how and personal information with external, and thus unauthorized, parties.
The risks of AI in the company, explained by the AI
In an attempt to answer this question, we asked one of the parties directly involved. Below, by points, are the main red flags related to the adoption of generative A.I. that were pointed out to us by herself.
According to the A.I., allowing workers to use these technologies could entail for a company
These are all interesting points to which one cannot fail to add the risk of the disclosure of corporate know-how and thus the dispersion of sensitive information for a company.
For an organization to study, define and implement policies, regulations and corporate guidelines for ethical and aware management of IA, but also to be fully compliant with regulatory dictates and to be protected from the risk of incurring one or more of the foreseen violations, it is essential.
An organization is accountable for its actions, decisions and performance not only to the legal system but also to its stakeholders – be they employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers.
A – now inevitable – implementation of artificial intelligence that is guided, responsible and aware, with careful oversight of its applications, may be the key to ensuring that the benefits and advantages outweigh what may be the risks.
Continue reading the full version published on Agenda Digitale.
The Italian Supreme Court, in its decision no. 807 of January 13, 2025, has once again addressed the legitimacy of employer monitoring of employees’ corporate email accounts. The Court reiterated that while an employer may access an employee’s company email, this action is only lawful if there is a well-founded suspicion of illegal conduct. Information gathered before such a suspicion arises cannot be used for disciplinary purposes.
In the case at hand, the company had dismissed a manager based on information obtained from an email log check, which was conducted prior to an alert from the company’s system that triggered the suspicion of misconduct. The Court of Appeal had already ruled that the information collected prior to the “employer’s suspicion” could not be used as evidence to support the dismissal, and that only the manager’s statements should be considered as the sole source of evidence.
This ruling raises important considerations regarding the limits of employer control, particularly in a technological context where surveillance capabilities have expanded. It is crucial to clearly define the boundaries within which monitoring activities and the data collected can be considered lawful and compliant with current regulations. Indeed, any monitoring activity must be proportionate, transparent, and clearly justified, ensuring that employees are informed about the scope and purpose of such surveillance.
Continue reading the full version published in Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto of Il Sole 24 Ore.
In its judgment of December 19, 2024, case C-65/23, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that (i) the provisions of national collective labor agreements must comply with data protection regulations and that:(ii) ”Should the national court seized of the matter conclude, following its review, that certain provisions of the collective agreement […] do not comply with the conditions and limits set forth by the GDPR, it would be required not to apply such provisions […].”
The case originates from a claim filed by a German employee, who claimed that the company he worked for was unlawfully processing his personal data. In particular, the company used a SAP software for accounting purposes and the personal data entered in it was transferred to a server located in the United States of America. The company defended itself by claiming that the processing of personal data carried out was lawful because it complied with the provisions of the collective agreements applied in the company.
The employee therefore brought the case before the territorially competent national courts, seeking: (i) access to his personal data, (ii) the deletion of data concerning him and (iii) the recognition of compensation.
The German national judges, called upon to decide the case, raised questions about the scope of the applicability of Article 88 of the GDPR. Article 88 of the GDPR provides that “Member States may, by law or by collective agreements, provide for more specific rules to ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of employees’ personal data in the employment context […]”.
In its ruling, the Court of Justice clarified that when the provisions of a national collective agreement regulate the processing of personal data in the workplace, they must comply with the fundamental principles of the GDPR. The effect must be to bind its addressees (employers and trade unions) to ensure compliance with the principles of lawfulness, fairness, and transparency of the processing, the requirements for lawful consent, and the rules regarding the processing of special categories of personal data.
This means that if a judge were to determine that the provisions of a collective agreement regulating one or more personal data processing activities in the workplace violate the conditions and limits set by the applicable sectoral legislation, the judge would be required to disapply the non-compliant provisions, without the discretion available to the parties to the agreement in determining the “necessary” nature of a personal data processing activity preventing the court from exercising full judicial review in this regard.
Other related insights: