Court Ruling Clarifies Privacy Boundaries in the Workplace: Security Cameras and Employee Rights

A recent ruling by the Israeli National Labor Court has provided important clarification on workplace privacy boundaries, particularly concerning the use of security cameras. The case, Labor Appeal 41179-01-24 Dr. Mark Friedman Ltd. v. Elkner, highlights the balance between employers’ operational needs and employees’ fundamental right to privacy.

The case involved an office manager who discovered two security cameras installed near her workstation without her prior knowledge or consent. The employer justified the cameras as a measure to prevent and document potential cases of sexual harassment in public office areas. However, the employee argued that the placement of cameras constituted a severe infringement on her privacy and amounted to a significant deterioration in her working conditions. After her request for their removal was denied, she resigned and sought severance pay, claiming her resignation should be treated as constructive dismissal.

The court relied on various fundamental principles from Israeli law, particularly the status of the right to privacy according to Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which gives central importance to protecting an individual’s privacy.

 The court outlined a structured framework to assess privacy infringements based on four key criteria: legitimacy of purpose, relevance, proportionality, and due process, including employee consent:

• The first stage focused on examining the legitimaccy and proper purpes for installing the cameras. This examination assessed whether there was a gennuine and legitimate need for the cameras that could justify the infringement on employees’ privacy. If no such need exists, the privacy infringement would not be legitimate, and emploees’ would have the right to resign as if dismissed.
• The second stage examined the extent of the privacy infringement. The assessment considered, among other factors, the location of the cameras, the degree of exposure of the employee, the impact of camera installation on work routine, and the severity of the infringement. Additionally, the question of whether the employer took appropriate measures to inform the employee about the installation of cameras was examined, with the aim of maintaining transparency in employment relations.
• The third and final stage examined the degree of consent required from the employee in the given case. According to the court’s determination, the guiding principle is that the more severe the privacy infringement, the more explicit and unequivocal consent is required.

Ultimately, the court ruled that installing cameras without prior notification or consent, especially in locations directly affecting an employee’s workstation, constituted an unjustifiable breach of privacy. This breach was deemed a material deterioration in employment conditions, entitling the employee to severance pay as if she had been dismissed.

This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and careful consideration when implementing workplace monitoring systems. Employers are reminded that employees’ right to privacy is a fundamental legal principle. Any potential infringement must be justified by legitimate needs, proportionate in scope, and accompanied by clear, informed consent.

Employers should adopt policies that respect privacy while addressing workplace safety or operational concerns. By doing so, they can maintain trust and compliance with legal standards while safeguarding employees’ rights.

Amal Shalah, Adv. & CPA, is a lawyer in the commercial department of our firm