Biometric attendance recording systems raise serious legal concerns, as confirmed by both the Supreme Administrative Court's case law and the position of the Office for Personal Data Protection. Although such solutions are commercially available, implementing them to record employee work time may pose legal risks and violate the provisions of the GDPR and the Labor Code.
The Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) has clearly recognized that the processing of employee biometric data for work time registration purposes is illegal and violates the fundamental principles of the GDPR, such as the principles of lawfulness, purpose limitation, and data minimization. This is because biometric data constitute a special category of personal data, the processing of which may only take place in strictly defined cases. The UODO emphasizes that exceptions are situations in which the employee gives consent voluntarily or when it is necessary to ensure access control to sensitive information or rooms requiring special protection (in accordance with Article 22(1b) of the Labor Code).
One of the key arguments against the use of biometric time recording systems is the employer's inability to demonstrate the proportionality and necessity of such a solution. According to the Supreme Administrative Court's case law, even an employee's voluntary consent to the collection and processing of biometric data for work time recording purposes is insufficient. This stems from an imbalance in the employer-employee relationship, which calls into question the actual voluntary nature of the consent granted. In its judgment, file reference I OSK 249/09, the court found that the use of biometric data to control work start and end times is disproportionate to the intended purpose – "Recognizing the fact that an employee has given consent to the processing of his or her data (Article 23, paragraph 1, point 1 of the Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data, Journal of Laws of 2002, No. 101, item 926, as amended) as a circumstance legalizing the collection of data from an employee other than those indicated in Article 22[1] of the Labor Code would constitute a violation of this provision of the Labor Code. 2. The use of biometric data to control employees' working time is disproportionate to the intended purpose of their processing within the meaning of Article 26, paragraph 1, point 3 of the aforementioned Act on Personal Data Protection."
The Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) recommends the use of alternative, lawful methods of recording working time, such as electronic access cards, ID badges, or traditional attendance lists. These solutions enable effective record-keeping without violating employee rights or risking legal consequences.
Failure to comply with personal data protection regulations can lead to serious consequences for employers. Violation of GDPR principles, including the illegal processing of biometric data, can result in administrative sanctions, including significant financial penalties. Furthermore, difficulties in demonstrating the principle of proportionality can lead to further legal and organizational complications.
In summary, the use of biometric data for timekeeping is inconsistent with applicable regulations and has no legal justification. Employers should use traditional attendance monitoring methods that comply with legal regulations and ensure the protection of employee personal data. Any initiatives related to biometrics should be undertaken only in exceptional cases, in accordance with legal regulations and after conducting a detailed risk analysis.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of January 30, 2025
author:
Be the first to receive our articles and legal alerts, straight to your inbox! Sign up for our newsletter by clicking the link or contact us at social@kglegal.pl to personalize your content.
