Anonymised respondents (2 employers)
Referred to police for prosecution of the CEO (s.20). DPO, 17 July 2013.
The facts
Three trade unions complained about two employers' use of fingerprint attendance systems without employee consent. A notice was served on both respondents to obtain consent or provide an alternative attendance method; the first complied, the second did not. Applying a four-part necessity, effectiveness, proportionality and less-invasive-means test drawn from international standards, the Commissioner held that fingerprinting non-consenting employees could not be justified under the Act or the employment contract, noting that convenience and cost-effectiveness cannot override the right to refuse.
Orders and outcome
The matter was referred to the police for prosecution against the Chief Executive Officer of the second respondent. Dated 17 July 2013.
Cite this decision
Track Mauritius enforcement
Free: a monthly digest of new verified decisions in your chosen jurisdictions. You confirm by email before anything is sent; every alert has an unsubscribe link. Privacy · Terms.