An ex-employee of a public area maintenance company complained that his work was unlawfully monitored by CCTV cameras controlled by the employer. While the employer argued that CCTV monitoring was required to assess the work performance of the employee and provide protection of the surveillance system, the NAIH argued back. The data processing authority argued that CCTV monitoring wasn’t appropriate to assess the work performance and the employer had no legal basis to do so. Moreover, to protect the public area surveillance system, the employer could have used other methods that didn’t invade the employee’s private space.
an exemployee of a public area maintenance company complained that his work was unlawfully monitored by cctv cameras controlled by the employer while the employer argued that cctv monitoring was required to assess the work performance of the employee and provide protection of the surveillance system the naih argued back the data processing authority argued that cctv monitoring wasn’t appropriate to assess the work performance and the employer had no legal basis to do so moreover to protect the public area surveillance system the employer could have used other methods that didn’t invade the employee’s private space
 exemployee   public area maintenance company complain   work  unlawfully monitor  cctv cameras control   employer   employer argue  cctv monitor  require  assess  work performance   employee  provide protection   surveillance system  naih argue back  data process authority argue  cctv monitor ’ appropriate  assess  work performance   employer   legal basis    moreover  protect  public area surveillance system  employer could  use  methods  ’ invade  employee’ private space