AEPD - PS/00067/2020

From GDPRhub
AEPD - PS/00067/2020
LogoES.jpg
Authority: AEPD (Spain)
Jurisdiction: Spain
Relevant Law: Article 13 GDPR
Article 89 LOPDGDD
Article 89(3) LOPDGDD
Article 20(3) LOPDGDD
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Upheld
Decided: n/a
Published:
Fine: None
Parties: Acteco Productos y Servicios SL
Confederacion Sindical de la Union General de Trabajadores
National Case Number/Name: PS/00067/2020
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): Spanish
Original Source: AEPD (in ES)
Initial Contributor: n/a

The Spanish DPA (AEPD) held that, whilst audio recording of the workplace is legal under Spanish law, the employer responsible must inform its employee in advance. Failure to inform the employees was in violation of Article 13 GDPR.

English Summary[edit | edit source]

Facts[edit | edit source]

Managers at the Zaragoza plant of Acteco Productos y Servicios record their employees using recorders around their neck. This is done in the workplace without the consent or authorisation of the employees. They are not informed of the purpose of the processing either.

According to Acteco Productos y Servicios, the rationale for recording the employees is because a manager was threatened physically by an employee in the workplace. As there was no audio recording of the event, the manager could not provide proof that the employee’s reaction had no link to something the manager had said before the event. Therefore, the management of the plant decided to audio record the workplace.

The recordings are saved on a hard drive if they concern a problematic conduct. Otherwise, they are deleted within the day. Any audio recordings that are kept are only used to establish the facts in the event of a dispute.

Acteco Productos y Servicios also video tapes the workplace with the employee’s knowledge. However, these video tapes do not record sound.

Acteco Productos y Servicios claims that audio recording of the workplace is justified as a result of a Supreme court decision dating from the 16 April 2015. In this decision, the Supreme court outlined that recording conversations that you are party to is not a crime or a violation of a fundamental right. However, it can be a crime if you subsequently reveal those recordings in the media or social networks. Subsequent use of the recordings for court procedures would not be a crime.

Dispute[edit | edit source]

Is the audio recording of an employee in the workplace without prior sufficient information in violation of Article 13 GDPR?

Holding[edit | edit source]

The Spanish DPA held that the audio recording of conversations between the managers and their employee are done in the workplace during work hours with the company’s equipment. These are not personal recorders as they are used within the scope of the management’s functions. Therefore, the defendant’s argument (that recording a conversation is not crime but only subsequent utilisation may be) does not apply in this context.

The Spanish DPA outlined that Acteco Productos y Servicios has the right to process images recorded within the scope of exercising control over employees in the workplace. This right is within Article 89 LOPDGDD. Similarly, Article 20(3) LOPDGDD enables the employer to adopt any measures it deems more appropriate to verify that employees comply with their work duties. Therefore, audio recording of conversations would be authorised.

The Spanish DPA also outlined that Article 89(3) LOPDGDD specifies that audio recording of the workplace is only authorised where there is particular risk to goods and persons in the workplace. Such audio recordings must respect the principle of proportionality in any case.

However, the Spanish DPA held that the employer has an obligation to inform its employees of the decision to audio record the workplace. This provision of information must be done in advance, expressly, concisely and clearly. Article 13 GDPR outlines the information that must be provided to employees as data subject.

Even if Acteco Productos y Servicios is legally authorised to record the workplace, the document presented by Acteco Productos y Servicios in this proceeding does not include the relevant information. Therefore, Acteco Productos y Servicios is in breach of Article 13 GDPR.

The Spanish DPA therefore asks the entity to take necessary measures within the next month to inform the employees in conformity with Article 89 LOPDGDD and Article 13 GDPR.

Comment[edit | edit source]

Share your comments here!

Further Resources[edit | edit source]

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]

The decision below is a machine translation of the Spanish original. Please refer to the Spanish original for more details.


Page 1
1/10
 Procedure Nº: PS / 00067/2020
938-0419
RESOLUTION OF SANCTIONING PROCEDURE
In the sanctioning procedure PS / 0067/2020, instructed by the Spanish Agency for
Data Protection, to the entity, ACTECO PRODUCTOS Y SERVICIOS, SL with
CIF .: B03971512 (hereinafter, “the claimed entity”), by virtue of the complaint
presented by the TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION OF THE GENERAL UNION OF
WORKERS, (hereinafter, "the claimant"), and based on the following,
BACKGROUND
FIRST: On 08/13/19, you had a written entry in this Agency, submitted
UNION CONFEDERATION OF THE GENERAL UNION OF WORKERS (in
hereinafter, “the complaining union”), in which it stated, among others, the following:
“Since last August 1, 2019, the middle managers of the company
ACTECO PRODUCTOS Y SERVICIOS, SL at the Zaragoza plant, they are recording
through tape recorders around his neck, personal conversations with
workers in their work environment without them having provided their
consent or authorization. Similarly, the committee has not been informed
company on the object and treatment of these recordings. We head to the
plant manager to ask for explanations about said recordings
answering us that they were legal ”.
SECOND: In view of the facts set forth in the claim and the documents
provided by the claimant, the Subdirectorate General for Data Inspection proceeded
to carry out actions for its clarification, under the powers of
investigation granted to the control authorities in article 57.1 of the Regulation
(EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter RGPD). So,
dated 10/28/19, an informative request is addressed to the claimed City Council.
THIRD: On 12/23/19, the claimed entity sends this Agency, in writing,
in which it informs, among others, of:
"This situation has its origin as a consequence of the ATTEMPTED AGGRESSION
PHYSICAL of a worker to the Manager when in the exercise of her functions
the worker is asked for explanations and she decides to face her with the
intent to inflict physical harm on you.
As a consequence, criticism is received from the union when the
The Company makes the decision to LAY OFF THE WORKER. One of
The arguments were, what would the Manager have said so that the worker
react in such a way?
Faced with this type of action, it is when it is requested by those in charge of
record their own conversations that they had within the Company with the
workers to be able to defend themselves from these attacks.
The Company Management consents to the use of the recorders: 1. For a series of
complaints from the Shift Managers. 2. For the attempted physical aggression suffered
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es
Page 2
2/10
one of them during the month of July. 3. Complaints from the Works Council about the
way of addressing the shift managers to the workers.
The Company has a video surveillance system, but it does not capture the
conversations, a system that is communicated to all workers both at the beginning
of the employment relationship at the signing of the employment contract, as in the Manual of
Welcome from the Company, as well as the older staff with the signature to the
installation of the video surveillance system and the use that can be made of it.
Personal situations that may harm people's dignity are not recorded,
all conversations are in the realm of work. Recordings or mere use
a tape recorder around the neck is a deterrent to conduct
aggressive and / or offensive, since it retains instincts, and actions that if not
Engravings are word against word, generating helplessness.
Recordings are saved to a hard drive as long as there has been any
vexatious conduct that is the object of the complaint, if not, the recorder is formatted and the
recording of the day. Its use would only be justified in case of denying facts that are
denounce and where the recording could be the means of proof of the complaint. The
Recordings within the company do not constitute a crime or violate any
law.
"Can people be recorded at their workplace? In this sense we have to
mention the Judgment, dated April 16, 2015, issued by Chamber 2 of the
Supreme court. Well, the Supreme Court, in the resolution now commented,
concludes that the fact of recording the images related to professional performance in
the place where it was carried out, when there were well-founded suspicions of
his irregular behavior; in no way can it imply unlawful interference in your
privacy and, even less, honor or image itself ... »
This opens the door for anyone to be recorded at their post.
work, whether civil servant or not. Consequently, the mere recording of a
conversation - even with an image - in which one is a part is not constitutive of
crime or violate any fundamental right. But, depending on the use made
of said recording, it is possible to incur criminal liability. Sentence
issued by the Supreme Court indicates that the conduct of the employee —who
considered subjected to continuous workplace harassment - it did not represent a
illegitimate interference in the personal privacy of the attorney, since in the recording
made by the worker with her mobile there was nothing that could be considered
as concerning his intimate life or personal intimacy, since he acted as
representative of the company.
To conclude RECORD A CONVERSATION IN WHICH ONE HAS INTERVENED
IT IS NOT A CRIME; HOWEVER, IT MAY BE A CRIME TO USE THAT
SUBSEQUENTLY SUCH A CONVERSATION IS MADE. Sentence no.
114/1984, dated November 29, issued by Chamber 2.3 of the Court
Constitutional Sentence No. 213/2014, dated December 2, issued by the Section
3.5 of the Ilma. Provincial Court of Zaragoza Judgment No. 222/2015, dated 16
April, issued by Chamber 2.3 of the Supreme Court Judgment No. 678/2014, of
dated November 20, dictated by Chamber La of the Supreme Court "
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es
Page 3
3/10
In the same way, the use of the tape recorders was justified to the Works Council and its
union representatives, but even so the Company must continue to defend its
actions before public bodies, at no time is it communicated or put in
The question of the use made of the recordings, but whether they can
be done or not. They are deterrence measures, in a situation that is complex,
since it generates defenselessness against verbal attacks. The only complaints for a
incorrect treatment have been drawn up by the Managers there is no written
no production worker. The Company has a PROTOCOL OF
WORKPLACE HARASSMENT, where a COMPLAINT model is established, to communicate
the acts or facts that they consider to be the object of sexual, racial or labor harassment,
This PROTOCOL has been communicated, as well as the COMPLAINT model to all
workers has even been posted on the EMPLOYEE PORTAL.
The Company has the EQUALITY PLAN, from this year, and one of its measures
has been the generation of the PROTOCOL OF HARASSMENT mentioned above. The
recorders will be removed with the WRITTEN COMMITMENT of the COMMITTEE OF
COMPANY to stop disputes, misunderstandings, and aggressions they suffer
THE MANAGERS, all as a token of good faith, a proposal that was made in
a meeting with the Committee but the answer was that they are the Managers who
"They speak badly to people, ..." so the only way to guarantee that they do not
produce verbal aggressions is to continue with the tape recorders until the
situation. It is a lesser evil to guarantee social peace.
The Company has a video surveillance system declared and communicated to all
the people of the organization, from the beginning of the employment relationship or from the
moment in which the video surveillance system was established in the Company.
Therefore, it is requested that by means of this document any
allegation of illegal use of the recording media that the Company has for the
exercise of its power of direction and organization in the workplace ”.
FOURTH: On 06/10/20, the Director of the Spanish Agency for the Protection of
Data agreed to initiate a sanctioning procedure against the claimed entity, by virtue of
the powers established, for breaching the provisions of article 13 of the RGPD,
regarding the information that must be provided to the interested parties when
collect personal data from them, with a sanction APERCIBIMENTO,
argued in it that: “although the company is entitled to carry out
audio recordings in the workplace, always complying with the provisions of the
RGPD and in the LOPDGDD, the works council has not been informed
conveniently, on the object and treatment of these recordings ”.
FIFTH: Notified the initiation agreement, the claimed entity, by writing of
dated 07/07/20, made, in summary, the following allegations:
"This situation has its origin as a consequence of the ATTEMPTED AGGRESSION
PHYSICAL of a worker to the shift manager when in the exercise of her duties
work functions, explanations are requested from the worker and she decides to face
her with the intention of inflicting physical harm on him, and thanks to the intervention of her
companions manage to separate her so that the aggression does not occur.
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es
Page 4
4/10
As a consequence, criticism is received from the union when the
The Company makes the decision to LAY OFF THE WORKER. One of
The arguments were, what would the Manager have said so that the worker
react in such a way? The situation is the following, the way of speaking is criticized,
which generates enormous helplessness to the person who has suffered an attempt to
aggression, in the wake of above will now be the person who has to defend
before a mere hint without proof, when what is true and proven is the attempt to
aggression. Faced with this type of action, it is when it is requested by the
In charge of recording their own conversations that they had within the
Company with the workers to be able to defend themselves from these attacks. The direction
of the Company consents to the use of the recorders:
1. For a series of complaints from the shift managers.
2. For the attempted physical aggression suffered by one of them during the month of July.
3. Complaints from the Works Committee about the way in which the Managers of
shift to the workers.
At this point, expose the antecedents surrounding the situation of the plant:
1. Mainly foreign plant personnel of African origin.
2. Personnel with difficulties in understanding the Spanish language.
3. The staff confuse the literality of the Spanish set phrases, with an insult
serious to his person.
The Company has a video surveillance system, but it does not capture the
conversations, a system that is communicated to all workers both at the beginning
of the employment relationship at the signing of the employment contract, as in the Manual of
Welcome from the Company, as well as the older staff with the signature to the
installation of the video surveillance system and the use that can be made of it.
The workers have surprised us on many occasions, carrying out
recordings both to what the Managers tell them, as in the meetings with everything
the group of workers, for the explanation of projects or services, even to
directors. Nothing is hidden because the meetings are of a public nature so
anyone can be subject to recording. Personal situations are not recorded that
can hurt the dignity of people, all conversations are in the field
from work. Recordings or the mere use of a tape recorder around the neck is a
deterrent to aggressive and / or offensive behavior, as it retains instincts, and
actions that, if not recorded, are word for word, generating
helplessness.
Recordings are saved to a hard drive as long as there has been any
vexatious conduct that is the object of the complaint, if not, the recorder is formatted and the
recording of the day. Its use would only be justified in case of denying facts that are
denounce and where the recording could be the means of proof of the complaint. The
Recordings within the company do not constitute a crime or violate any
fundamental right. “Can you record people at your job?
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es
Page 5
5/10
In this sense, we have to mention the Judgment, dated April 16, 2015,
issued by the 2nd Chamber of the Supreme Court. In this case those that were recorded and
caught red-handed were some civil guards who, in their defense, alleged the
violation of their "rights to privacy, honor and self-image of the
accused (art. 18.1 CE) because, (…) they were recorded at the place of the
facts, that it was a room reserved for the search of travelers' luggage,
the acts committed by the appellants using hidden cameras and with deficiencies
in its judicial authorization and subsequent treatment. "
Well, the Supreme Court, in the resolution now commented on, concludes that "the
fact of recording the images related to the professional performance of the Guards in
the place where it was carried out, when there were well-founded suspicions of
Their irregular behavior, in no way can suppose illicit interference in their privacy
and, even less, honor or image itself. " This opens the door for recording
to anyone in their job, whether they are a civil servant or not.
Consequently, the mere recording of a conversation - even with an image - on the
that one is a party does not constitute a crime or violates any fundamental right.
But, depending on the use made of said recording, it may be incurred
criminal responsibilities.
The judgment handed down by the Supreme Court indicates that the conduct of the employee -
who considered herself to be subjected to continuous workplace harassment - did not represent a
illegitimate interference in the personal privacy of the attorney, since in the recording
made by the worker with her mobile there was nothing that could be considered
as concerning his intimate life or personal intimacy, since he acted as
representative of the company. The Supreme adds that the existence of a previous
situation of conflict between the parties adds "a note of reasonableness to the conduct
of the defendant ".
To conclude RECORD A CONVERSATION IN WHICH ONE HAS INTERVENED
IT IS NOT A CRIME; HOWEVER, IT MAY BE A CRIME TO USE THAT
SUBSEQUENTLY SUCH A CONVERSATION IS MADE.
Judgment No. 114/1984, dated November 29, issued by the 2nd Chamber of the Court
Constitutional; Judgment No. 213/2014, dated December 2, issued by the
Section 3 of the Ilma. Provincial Court of Zaragoza; Judgment No. 222/2015, of
dated April 16, dictated by the 2nd Chamber of the Supreme Court; Sentence no.
678/2014, dated November 20, issued by the 1st Chamber of the Supreme Court "
In the same way, the use of the tape recorders was justified to the Works Council and its
union representatives, but even so the Company must continue to defend its
actions before public bodies, at no time is it communicated or put in
The question of the use made of the recordings, but whether they can
be done or not. They are deterrence measures, in a situation that is complex,
since it generates defenselessness against verbal attacks.
The only complaints of improper treatment have been drawn up by the Managers not
there is none in writing from any production worker. Can be attached
complaints for different reasons: Disrespect for questions or questions of
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es
Page 6
6/10
labor nature. Not attending the orders of the Managers due to her condition of woman.
This would list several reasons for which the Managers have put in writing
and they have reliably communicated to the Company's Management. The
workers have communicated only verbally, without specifying without giving more data
that can be investigated or at least verified The Company has a
LABOR HARASSMENT PROTOCOL, where a COMPLAINT model is established,
to communicate the acts or events that they consider to be the object of sexual harassment,
racial or labor, this PROTOCOL has been communicated, as well as the model of
DENUNCIATION of all workers has even been posted on the PORTAL DEL
EMPLOYEE.
The Company has the EQUALITY PLAN, from this year, and one of its measures
has been the generation of the PROTOCOL OF HARASSMENT mentioned above.
Recorders will be disposed of with the WRITTEN COMMITMENT of the COMMITTEE OF
COMPANY to stop disputes, misunderstandings, and aggressions they suffer
THE MANAGERS, all as a token of good faith, a proposal that was made in
a meeting with the Committee but the answer was that they are the Managers who
"They speak badly to people, ..." so the only way to guarantee that they are not
produce verbal aggressions is to continue with the tape recorders until the
situation.
It is a lesser evil to guarantee social peace. The Company has a system of
video surveillance declared and communicated to all people in the organization,
from the beginning of the employment relationship or from the moment in which the
video surveillance system in the Company. Therefore, it is requested that through the
this writing is disproved any allegation of illegal use of the media
recording that the Company has for the exercise of its management power and
organization within the workplace. The different investigations of a harassment nature
that have been reported and are being investigated result in the treatment of
word of the workers to the managers and the only justification is the word of
facing each other, these recordings shed light on the ways of treating the situation of
current tension and to resolve the problems of discriminatory treatment the actions of
the managers and the workers.
SIXTH: On 08/04/20, the claimed entity is notified of the proposed
resolution in which it is proposed that, by the Director of the Spanish Agency for
Data Protection is sanctioned with "warning", for a violation of article
13) of the RGPD, in accordance with the provisions of article 58.2) of the aforementioned RGPD.
SEVENTH: After the notification of the proposed resolution, it has not been received in this
Agency, no statement of allegations to the resolution proposal, in the period
granted for this purpose.
In view of all the actions, by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection
In this proceeding, the following are considered proven facts,
PROVEN FACTS
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es
Page 7
7/10
1.- According to the complaining union, since 08/01/19, the managers
intermediaries of the claimed entity, "are recording, by means of tape recorders
personal conversations with workers hanging around the neck
in their work environment without their consent or authorization.
Nor has the works council been informed about the object and treatment of
these recordings ”.
2º.- According to the address of the claimed entity, this situation has its origin as
consequence of the attempted physical aggression of a worker to the shift manager
when in the exercise of their work functions explanations were requested from the
worker and she decided to face her with the intention of inflicting physical harm,
being the claimant union who, “puts into question the words of the person in charge
addressed to the worker so that she would react in that way ”. Before these
facts and the complaint for defenselessness of those in charge, the Company's Management
consent to the use of the recorders so that situations do not occur again
similar.
3.- According to the claimed entity, it has a system of
video surveillance, but does not capture conversations, a system that is communicated to
all workers both at the beginning of the employment relationship and at the signing of the employment contract
work, as in the Company Welcome Manual.
4º.- According to the claimed entity, the use of voice recorders was justified when
Works Council and its union representatives, and provides a copy of the document
entitled, "MONITORING OF THE ZARAGOZA PLANT ACTIONS- August 8, 2019",
where, among others, it is reported:
"After the meeting held on July 22 at the facilities of the
Acteco de Zaragoza and having estimated a series of actions / conclusions of
that meeting, we went on to detail their current situation: (…)
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Communicate that ACTECO has made itself available to the Managers and
Subcommissioned recorders that they must carry throughout their day and whose
recordings will be dumped whole in computers.
In this way, in any conflict they may be used and objectively assessed by the
Company Committee, Management and other labor entities, the different situations
exposed and causing the conflict.
Recordings of conversations in which one is a part are not constitutive of
crime or violate any fundamental right and this was corroborated by the sentence
of
dated April 16, 2015, issued by the 2nd Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, recording a conversation in which one intervened is considered a crime.
In any case, it could be considered a crime, the subsequent use of these
recordings. If it is considered as evidence in a trial there would be no problem,
while, if it is for dissemination in the media, social networks, etc.
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es
Page 8
8/10
could be committing a crime for revealing secrets or for assuming a
Unlawful interference with privacy, the right to honor or the company's own image
affected.
Recordings are saved to a hard drive as long as there has been any
vexatious conduct that is the object of the complaint, if not, the recorder is formatted and the
recording of the day. Its use would only be justified in case of denying facts that are
denounce and where the recording could be the means of proof of the complaint. The
Recordings within the company do not constitute a crime or violate any
fundamental right. "Can you record people in their workplace?"
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW
I
The Director of the Spanish Agency is competent to resolve this procedure
of Data Protection, in accordance with the provisions of art. 58.2 of the GDPR in
the art. 47 of LOPDGDD.
II
The joint evaluation of the documentary evidence in the procedure brings to
knowledge of the AEPD, a vision of the denounced action that has been
reflected in the facts declared proven above related. However, on the
allegations presented by the claimed entity at the initiation of the file,
indicate the following:
First, the recordings of the conversations between the managers and the
workers, are carried out in the workplace, during working hours and with equipment
provided by the company, they are not personal recorders, purchased by the
own managers, but provided by the management of the company for the
exercise of their functions as plant managers, and not used to record
personal or private conversations, of those in charge, therefore, the statement that
makes the claimed entity of, “record a conversation in which one has intervened
it is not a crime; However, the subsequent use of
said conversation ”cannot be taken into account in this area.
Apart from this, the company is fully entitled to "treat the images obtained
through recording systems for the exercise of control functions of the
workers ”and this is indicated in article 89 of the LOPDGDD. Also article 20.3
of the Workers' Statute, when it says that: “The employer may adopt the
measures it deems most appropriate of surveillance and control to verify the
compliance by the worker of his obligations and labor duties, keeping in
its adoption and application the consideration due to his dignity (…) ”, allowing, for
Therefore, the use of voice recorders, for the correct functioning of the work.
Regarding this type of control, article 89.3 of the LOPDGDD indicates that, “the
use of systems similar to those referred to in the previous sections for the
Recording of sounds in the workplace will be allowed only when they are
relevant risks to the safety of facilities, goods and people
derived from the activity carried out in the workplace and always
respecting the principle of proportionality, that of minimum intervention and the guarantees
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es
Page 9
9/10
provided for in the previous sections. Suppression of the sounds preserved by
These recording systems will be carried out in accordance with the provisions of article 22.3
of this law ”.
Therefore, as an obligation of the company, the norm obliges it to inform with character
prior, and expressly, clearly and concisely, to the workers or their representatives,
of the measures implemented in the company, such as in this case, the use, by
of those in charge, of voice recorders for the correct development of the work,
as he does, according to his statements, when informing the workers of the
use of image recordings.
Regarding the information that must be provided to workers or their
representative, article 13 of the RGPD, indicates that, when obtained from a
interested party (worker) personal data relating to him, as in this case, his voice, the
responsible for the treatment, will provide you with information, among other things, about: the
identity and contact details of the data controller; the ends of
treatment and the legal basis thereof; the period during which the
personal information; existing rights, etc.
In this sense, in the document presented by the claimed entity, in the
allegations at the initiation of the file, entitled "MONITORING ACTIONS
PLANT ZARAGOZA ”, 08/08/19, although the company logo is printed,
"ACTECO" is not signed, nor sealed by the company, nor is it identified
no person responsible for it, in the event that it was a document
displayed on the information board for workers. It is also not signed, as
acknowledgment of receipt, by any member of the works council or union representative,
if this document had been sent to the Works Council or to the representatives
from the workers.
Therefore, even if the company is entitled to use media
labor control, as in this case, the use of voice recorders is also
obliged to expressly, clearly and concisely report these facts to the
workers.
In view of the above, the following is issued:
RESOLVES:
APERCIBIR: to the entity ACTECO PRODUCTOS Y SERVICIOS, SL with CIF .:
B03971512 for violation of article 13) of the RGPD.
REQUEST: to the entity ACTECO PRODUCTOS Y SERVICIOS, SL so that, in the
within one month from the notification of this resolution, take the necessary measures
to inform workers' representatives of the measures taken in the
recording of audios in the workplace in accordance with the provisions of article 89
of the LOPDGDD and in article 13 of the RGPD.
NOTIFY: this resolution to ACTECO PRODUCTOS Y SERVICIOS, SL
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es
Page 10
10/10
In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDPGDD, this
Resolution will be made public once it has been notified to the interested parties.
Against this resolution, which puts an end to the administrative procedure in accordance with art. 48.6 of the
LOPDPGDD, and in accordance with the provisions of article 123 of the LPACAP, the
Interested parties may optionally file an appeal for reconsideration before the
Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection within one month to
count from the day after notification of this resolution or directly
contentious-administrative appeal before the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the
National High Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of
the fourth additional provision of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the
Contentious-administrative jurisdiction, within a period of two months from the
day following notification of this act, as provided in article 46.1 of the
referred Law.
Mar Spain Martí
Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection.
C / Jorge Juan, 6
www.aepd.es
28001 - Madrid
sedeagpd.gob.es