This issue is being controversial, to say the least, since there has been a lot of debate between rulings from different courts as to whether using the recordings obtained by a security camera to prove the irregularities of the workers was legal or not.

We delve into this new sentence. On June 21, 2019, the company notified one of its workers of disciplinary dismissal due to the delivery of some products owned by the company to a third party who paid him cash, which the worker appropriated, refraining from delivering a delivery note or receipt of any payment, and therefore the company considered that this fact was serious enough to justify a disciplinary dismissal of the worker.

The worker challenged the dismissal letter before the Social Court 1 of Vitoria-Gasteiz. The court issued a ruling on June 3, 2020 decreeing that the worker's dismissal had been appropriate, alleging that the proven facts represented a “transgression of contractual good faith.”

The company used as evidence in the trial the recording from the viewing of one of the video surveillance cameras placed inside the work center, belonging to the company's general security system. The use of this system is announced by a sign placed outside the center, mentioning the “video-surveillance area.” The worker was aware that there were cameras placed in his workplace and that there was a precedent in which a colleague had been dismissed after verifying inappropriate behavior in the company through surveillance cameras.

The worker, being dissatisfied with the sentence handed down by the Social Court 1 of Vitoria-Gasteiz, filed an appeal before the Social Court of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country, which in this case annulled the ruling of the Social Court 1 of Vitoria-Gasteiz and agreed with the worker, understanding that the dismissal should be declared unfair because the facts were based on illicit evidence, since in the opinion of the court there was no evidence that the worker had been informed of the processing of the data for disciplinary use, which in its opinion invalidated its use as a means of evidence.

The company presented an appeal for the unification of doctrine that was inadmissible by the Supreme Court, due to lack of contrast with the sentence provided by the appellant entity for this purpose.

For this reason, the company presented an appeal for protection considering that the evidence was valid since what was intended was to verify a specific and flagrant fact, and in these cases, it is sufficient for the worker to be aware of the existence of the video surveillance system.

The sentence handed down by the Constitutional Court annuls the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country dated October 2020 that upheld the appeal filed by the worker against the admissibility of his dismissal.

We are faced with a very interesting ruling that establishes jurisprudence with this ruling and strengthens a criterion that has been highly debated in recent times.

Failed: They uphold the appeal filed by the company, declaring that their fundamental right to the use of the relevant means of proof (art. 24.2 CE) and to a process with all guarantees (art. 24.2 CE), in connection with the right to effective judicial protection (art. 24.1 CE), has been violated.

Consequently, they dictate that the nullity of sentence no. 1211/2020, of October 6, issued by the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country in appeal no. 956-2020; and the order of September 14, 2021, issued by the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, by which the inadmissibility of the appeal for unification of doctrine no. 28-2021, filed against the previous one; the ruling of June 3, 2020 of the Social Court no. 1 of Vitoria-Gasteiz, issued within the framework of procedure no. 449-2019.

We encourage you to read the full sentence.