Privacy Rights and Use of Cameras in the Workplace

Security cameras have become commonplace in workplaces, raising concerns about the potential privacy violations for employees.

• Under what circumstances is the installation and use of these cameras considered legitimate?

 

• To what extent is there a risk to privacy under these circumstances?

 

• When, how, and to what extent must employers inform employees about the use of cameras and obtain their consent?

These questions were addressed by the National Labor Court in a recent landmark ruling. The court’s determinations will necessitate that employers re-evaluate how they utilize workplace cameras.

***

• The Court’s ruling [Labor Appeal (National) 41179-01-24, Mark Friedman Ltd. v. Elkner (March 26, 2025)] addresses the case of an employee who resigned after many years at the workplace, citing a tangible deterioration in her working conditions following the installation of two surveillance cameras near her work area.

 

• Over the years, the right to privacy of employees in the workplace has found expression in various court rulings. Notably, the guiding ruling in the Issakov case [Labor Appeal (National) 90/08 Issakov v. Commissioner of the Women’s Employment Law (February 8, 2011)], dealt with the employer’s ability to monitor the contents of an e-mail inbox used by its employees.

 

This case established the employer’s obligation to create a clear policy, obtain express, informed, and voluntary consent from the employee, and adhere to guiding principles and rules. There principles include the legitimacy of the purpose of surveillance, proportionality of the means of supervision, and relevance to the purpose concerning the collection and limitation of information use.

 

• Regarding the placement of cameras in the workplace, the Privacy Protection Authority published a directive in 2017, building on a previous general directive concerning the use of security and surveillance cameras. The Authority’s directive was primarily based on the Court’s ruling in the Issakov

 

• In its new ruling on the matter, the Court ruled that the mere placement of cameras in the workplace does not constitute a tangible deterioration in employment terms that would allow an employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal.

 

• After reviewing practices in various countries, the Court established that the guiding principles for examining potential privacy violations related to workplace cameras involve a multi-stage examination.

 

• First Stage: Examining the legitimacy of the privacy violation and the existence of a proper purpose:

 

• • Within this framework, it is necessary to determine whether the purpose of placing the cameras is essential and intended to promote a legitimate objective in the workplace.

• • In what cases would placing cameras be considered legitimate? Examples include preventing theft, deterring break-ins, documenting and deterring incidents of violence and sexual harassment, etc.

 

• Second Stage: Examining the degree of privacy infringement resulting from the placement of the cameras:

 

• • At this stage, and only if the privacy infringement is deemed legitimate, it must be assessed whether the chosen alternative for camera placement results in minimal privacy infringement for employees and is relevant to achieving the intended purpose.

• • The Court specified several sub-tests in this context, including: whether the camera is placed in a public or private area; whether it records only the employee or other parts of the office; whether it includes audio recording; whether the footage is accessible to the employer or a security company; and, if accessible to the employer, which officials have access to the footage.

 

• Third Stage: Balancing the privacy violation and the degree of the employee’s consent:

 

• • As part of this stage, it is necessary to check whether the employees were given the opportunity to express their position on the matter.

 

Bear in mind: In unionized workplaces, it will be necessary to check whether this has been discussed with the workers’ representatives.

• • Within this framework, it is necessary to determine, inter alia, whether the employer informed the employees about the potential privacy violation due to the camera placement and whether consent was obtained. Additionally, it must be assessed whether the obtained consent is sufficient.

• • Regarding required consent, the Court ruled that the more severe the privacy violation, the more the employer must obtain the employee’s explicit consent to use the camera. For less severe violations, it is sufficient to only inform the employee.

• • In cases of extremely severe privacy violations, such as placing cameras in changing rooms and restrooms, obtaining consent from employees is not permissible.

• • Even during the hiring process, the employer must inform employees about the existence of cameras. The lower the harm they cause, the less stringent the consent required, and the more severe the harm, the clearer the knowledge and consent required (through an appendix to the employment agreement or a separate document).

• • The Court noted the importance of considering whether the privacy violation affects a new or existing employee and whether there has been a change in this context throughout the employees’ employment.

• • The ruling addressed the issue of an employee’s entitlement to severance pay due to resignation stemming from a tangible deterioration in working conditions, specifically related to a privacy violation. However, privacy violations resulting from the installation and use of cameras may have additional consequences beyond the employee’s entitlement to severance pay due to a tangible deterioration in working conditions. It is important to note that, as of today, compensation due to violations of the Privacy Protection Law is not within the Court’s jurisdiction.

 

• Employers- keep the following in mind:

 

• • Does your workplace have a clear policy regarding the placement and use of cameras?

 

It is essential to examine whether this policy meets the conditions set forth in the new ruling.

 

• • No such policy in place?

 

Now is the time to formulate a policy that complies with the relevant case law.

 

• • How are employees in your workplace informed about the location and use of cameras?

 

It is crucial to assess whether your workplace’s obligation to inform and obtain consent from employees meets the standards set forth in the new ruling, especially considering the extent to which the cameras infringe on the employees’ privacy.

 

 

We are at your disposal to help you ensure compliance with the new ruling’s requirements and to answer any questions on this subject or on any other issues.

 

Labor Law Department

Herzog Fox and Neeman