Inadmissible camera footage does not invalidate dismissal evidence

Monitoring of workers
Unusable camera footage, but the dismissal may be sustained on other evidence
Court of Cassation, Labour Division

A supermarket worker had been dismissed for consuming products on sale without paying for them and for breaching the hygiene rules of her department. The allegations had come to light through recordings made by cameras installed by an investigative agency. The Tribunal had dismissed the challenge, whilst the Court of Appeal had declared the dismissal unlawful, finding the footage inadmissible on the ground that the employer had not proved the existence of a well-founded suspicion prior to the surveillance.
The Court of Cassation criticised that conclusion. The inadmissibility of the video recordings does not prevent the court from assessing the other evidence properly admitted, nor the worker’s substantial failure to contest the facts. The Court of Appeal had indeed excluded proof of the alleged conduct for the purposes of the dismissal, whilst at the same time relying on the worker’s admission of the facts and on statements made by other workers in order to dismiss the damages claim.
The case must therefore be re-examined to determine whether, even without the footage, the other evidence is sufficient to establish the conduct alleged and its seriousness. For employers, the ruling confirms that an unlawful defensive surveillance operation may render the footage inadmissible, but does not automatically extinguish every other source of evidence. It remains essential to document with precision both the grounds for the surveillance and any independent elements relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings.