Factory worker ‘mocked’ after appearing in training video secures damages over data infringement

A factory supervisor, who claimed he was mocked by colleagues after his employer used CCTV images of him in a training video, has been awarded compensation for non-material damage in the first such compensation decree by an Irish court in for infringement of his personal data rights.

Judge John O’Connor made the decision in a claim by Arkadiusz Kaminski, of Ridgewood Green, Swords, Co Dublin, against Ballymaguire Foods Limited of Rathmooney, Lusk, Co Dublin.

Mr Kaminski told the Circuit Civil Court that after he was recognised in the instruction video he was approached by a number of employees informing him that he was captured on CCTV “doing something he should not have been doing”.

He told his counsel Claire Hogan, who appeared with McGuigan Solicitors, that colleagues who recognised him on the training video used this as a source of mockery, which caused him upset, anxiety and embarrassment.

Bryan Dobson: ‘Suddenly I was on the wrong side of the police line ... these fellas came after me into a forest’

---

I spent my maternity leave in a chemo chair. Then I got a letter telling me to go back to work

---

Trump’s week in court: Gasps and a pick-up in pace as Hope Hicks is called

---

The Croke Park effect: ‘It was one of the very few times I cried during the opposition anthem’

---

Mr Kaminski informed solicitors Tracey Brady and Richard Crowley, who led investigations into his complaints, that he was highly distressed by this and felt his authority had been undermined. He said this distress was exacerbated by the fact the footage remained freely accessible on the company’s computer system.

The proceedings were brought under the Data Protection Act 2018 alleging a breach of the provisions of the Act or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and seeking compensation for non-material damage.

‘Mere upset’

Ballymaguire Foods, represented by barrister Eoin Coffey and BHSM Solicitors, claimed Mr Kaminski was not entitled to recover damages because the non-material damage amounted to no more than “mere upset, anxiety and embarrassment” for which damages were irrecoverable.

Judge O’Connor, in a detailed written judgment, said he had to decide if the CCTV footage, in a demonstration of work practice, breached Mr Kaminski’s personal data in that it constituted an unlawful processing of his data.

If his answer was yes, then he had to decide whether the non-material damage went beyond mere upset or displeasure and, if so, what if any compensation was recoverable and how was it to be calculated.

He said it was accepted by both parties that Mr Kaminski was identifiable and the court was satisfied there was an infringement of his rights under the GDPR; there was non-material damage arising from that and there was a casual link between the damage and the infringement.

“The damage in this case resulted in some slagging by employees, culminating in some serious embarrassment and sleep loss,” the judge said. “The plaintiff was not at the training meeting of supervisors and managers and did not know (until later) his image would be used.”

Not accessed

Judge O’Connor said the CCTV was stored on a communal work computer without password protection and although this created a serious risk, it was not accessed by unauthorised persons.

“The court accepts Mr Kaminski’s loss went beyond mere upset and created an emotional experience and negative emotions of insecurity which did affect him for a short time,” the judge said. “While not backed up by a medical report…the plaintiff was viewed by the court as a truthful and conscientious witness who did not exaggerate the effect of the data breach on him.”

Judge O’Connor said it was admirable that Ballymaguire Foods has addressed the issues in relation to the data policies and the use of CCTV for training in the workplace.  The data breach has not had any long-term effect on Mr Kaminski, he said.

He said the appropriate award for non-material damages in his case was €2,000, with an order for all of the legal costs involved in the case.