Written by Yoheved Novogroder-Shoshan, Shira Lahat, Miriam Friedmann and Menachem Becker
On March 26th, 2025 the Israeli National Labor Court, Israel’s highest labor court, issued a decision in the case of Friedman Ltd. v. Elkanar.[1] The decision provides detailed guidance regarding permissible use of closed- circuit television (CCTV) cameras in the workplace.
Legal Background
In recent years, the issue of balancing the right to privacy in the workplace with the employer’s rights has received partial attention in Israeli case law. The Isakov case from 2011 was a milestone in this area, where the National Labor Court set out basic principles for balancing the employee’s right to privacy with the employer’s rights to property and to manage their business.[2]
In 2017, the Privacy Protection Authority published guidelines regarding the use of surveillance cameras in the workplace,[3] but these guidelines did not have binding legal status.[4] The current judgment expands on the principles outlined in these guidelines, gives them legal force, and details the relevant considerations for the reasonable and proportionate installation of cameras in the workplace.
The Criteria for Installing Security Cameras in the Workplace
In its judgment, the court established a detailed three-stage test for examining the installation of cameras in the workplace:
1.Legitimacy and Proper Purpose
The employer must prove that the installation of cameras was done for legitimate reasons and a proper purpose. Examples of a proper purpose include preventing theft and break-ins, documenting incidents of violence or sexual harassment, and protecting company property. In the absence of a legitimate purpose for installing cameras, this will be considered a violation of employees’ privacy and a significant deterioration of their employment conditions.
2. Degree of Infringement
The employer must establish that the installation of security cameras was done proportionately and that alternative means that could minimize the infringement of employees’ privacy were considered. As part of this test, the intensity and scope of the infringement of employees’ privacy must be examined.
It should be emphasized that the infringement of employees’ privacy is not only binary but spans a wide range of intensities and aspects.
When examining the degree of infringement of the employee’s privacy, all factors that may affect the proper balance between the conflicting interests should be considered. Examples of such factors include:
Location of the Cameras:
Whether the cameras were installed in shared public spaces or in areas characterized by a higher degree of privacy.
Scope of Filming:
Whether the camera focuses exclusively on the employee or records a broader area that includes other parts of the office.
Employee Seniority:
The longer an employee has been employed at the workplace, the more significant the infringement of their privacy will be, due to the legitimate expectation that has developed over time regarding their working conditions.
Employer Conduct:
Whether the employer acted in good faith and with transparency before installing the cameras, including the degree of transparency shown to employees and the extent of their involvement in the decision-making process regarding the installation of the surveillance system.
After a thorough examination of all the above factors and other relevant considerations for the circumstances of the case, the third test outlined in the court’s case law should be applied.
3. Balancing Against the Degree of Employee Consent
Depending on the degree of infringement of the employee’s privacy, the required level of consent from the employee to legitimize the action must be examined. The deeper and more significant the infringement of the employee’s privacy, the more explicit, clear, and unequivocal consent will be required.
When making this assessment, the degree of consent should be considered in light of the inherent power imbalance that characterizes the employment relationship between the employee and their employer. At the extreme end of the infringement spectrum, there may be cases where the infringement of the employee’s privacy is so severe and fundamental that even explicit and informed consent from the employee cannot legitimize the action or cure its defect. A clear example of this is the installation of cameras in private areas such as restrooms.
Practical Guidelines for Employers
Following the judgment, employers seeking to install security cameras in the workplace are required to act in accordance with the following guiding principles:
- Define a Clear Purpose – The purpose of installing the cameras must be clearly defined, and the use of the recorded information must be limited to that purpose only.
- Examine Proportionality – The employer must consider whether the objective can be achieved by less intrusive means.
- Duty of Prior Notification – The employer must inform employees about the installation of cameras in the workplace.
- Duty to Obtain Consent – The higher the degree of infringement of privacy, the more explicit the employee’s consent must be.
- Transparency in the Process – The employer must act transparently and in good faith when installing cameras, involving employees in the process.
Consequences of Non-Compliance
Employers who install cameras without meeting the above conditions may be exposed to significant legal risks, including:
- Exposure to lawsuits for violation of privacy, with administrative, criminal, and civil consequences.
- Claims for severance pay by employees who resign due to the installation of cameras (resignation considered as dismissal).
Our privacy and employment teams are available to provide further guidance.
[1] Labor Appeal 41179-01-24 Dr. Mark Friedman Ltd. v. Revital Elkanar (26.03.2025).
[2] Labor Appeal (National) 90/08 Tali Isakov Inbar v. State of Israel – Commissioner for the Women’s Work Law and Others (Nevo 8.2.2011).
[3] Data Registrar Directive 5/17 “Use of Surveillance Cameras in the Workplace and in the Context of Employment Relations” dated (17.10.2017).
[4] Yoav Dotan, Administrative guidelines 28-39 (1996).
This publication is provided as a service to our clients and colleagues, with explicit clarification that each specific case requires individual examination and discussion in writing.
The information presented here is of a general nature and is not intended to answer the unique circumstances of any individual or entity. Although we strive to provide accurate and available information, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information on the day it is received, nor that the information will continue to be accurate in the future. Do not act on the information presented without appropriate professional advice after a comprehensive and thorough examination of the specific situation.
