Employee monitoring via GPS and disciplinary limits

1. The facts

   According to reports from Il Sole 24 Ore and specialized legal publications, the main case stems from a recent Supreme Court judgment. An employee of a security consortium was dismissed for just cause after the company, cross-referencing GPS data from the service vehicle with paper reports, identified unjustified stops in unauthorized locations. The employee's defense challenged the admissibility of the data, arguing it was gathered without the prior union agreement required by law. The judicial process ended with a final ruling confirming the dismissal. Concurrently, the Privacy Authority sanctioned a local health authority for massive and continuous monitoring of its drivers, finding that the sampling frequency of the GPS signal was excessive relative to the declared safety purposes, constituting unlawful remote monitoring due to the absence of an impact assessment.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The relevant legal framework centers on Art. 4 of Law no. 300/1970 (Workers' Statute), which governs audiovisual equipment and other monitoring devices.

   1. Paragraph 1 establishes that devices enabling remote monitoring may only be installed for organizational, operational, or safety needs, subject to a union agreement or authorization from the National Labor Inspectorate.
   2. Paragraph 2 exempts tools used by workers to perform their duties from this procedure, but case law interprets this exception restrictively regarding GPS devices.
   3. Paragraph 3 makes the use of data for disciplinary purposes conditional upon compliance with data protection laws. At the European level, Art. 35 of EU Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) mandates a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for systematic monitoring, while Art. 5 establishes the principle of data minimization, prohibiting the processing of data exceeding the declared purpose.

3. What the jurisprudence says

   Supreme Court jurisprudence has consolidated an orientation that clearly distinguishes performance monitoring from so-called defensive controls. The court has clarified that a GPS device installed on a vehicle is not, as a rule, an indispensable work tool; therefore, its deployment invariably requires a union agreement or an authorization order from the Inspectorate. However, it has been specified that gathered data remains admissible to prove illegal conduct harming corporate assets or public trust, such as fraudulent records of presence. In such cases, qualifying as defensive controls in the strict sense, the employer's right of protection prevails provided the check is targeted, activated ex post upon specific suspicion, and does not degenerate into systematic monitoring of the worker's private life. Lower courts also stress the need for adequate prior notice explaining the company's option to run cross-checks.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Draft a detailed data protection disclosure explicitly stating the company's option to cross-reference GPS logs with attendance records for disciplinary checks.
   2. Secure a union agreement or authorization from the Labor Inspectorate even if the GPS appears to be an operational tool, avoiding evidentiary exclusion challenges.
   3. Conduct a DPIA beforehand to justify the chosen sampling frequency and demonstrate compliance with proportionality principles.
   4. Restrict historical location data checks to situations involving documentary anomalies or specific reports, refraining from unjustified real-time monitoring.

References: Articolo 4 Legge 300/1970Articolo 5 Regolamento UE 2016/679 (GDPR)Articolo 35 Regolamento UE 2016/679 (GDPR)Articolo 38 Legge 300/1970

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 2 August 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction