GPS tracking of employees: Where the line is drawn

Employee location data is personal data. Its processing in an employment relationship is governed by the GDPR and § 26 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz. A legal basis and a proportionality assessment are always required: Is the processing suitable, necessary, and appropriate for achieving a legitimate purpose?

Consent is a weak foundation in an employment relationship because it must be voluntary and can be withdrawn at any time. Anyone who bases their process on it has no solution if consent is withdrawn.

Continuous location tracking throughout the entire shift creates a complete movement profile. It therefore deeply interferes with personal rights and is generally not necessary because the same purpose can be achieved with less intrusive means. Such systems fail precisely on this requirement of necessity.

Those who minimize data and collect location only in connection with an event are in a much stronger position:

• Check-in and check-out: one location at the moment of clocking in or out to prove that the security officer was at the site. No profile in between.
• Checkpoint scan: evidence of a patrol through NFC or QR checkpoints instead of continuous tracking.
• Emergency: location when an alarm or lone worker alarm is triggered, to protect the security officer.

This is exactly how Balerion Security is built: Geofencing checks whether the security officer is on site when clocking in, without tracking them continuously.

Regardless of the technology, this includes: information for employees under Art. 13 GDPR, an entry in the record of processing activities, defined deletion periods, and, if a Betriebsrat exists, its involvement. Under the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, introducing technical equipment that can monitor behavior or performance is subject to codetermination.