The complainant in this case study was a former employee of a statutory service provider, whose work involved driving to locations assigned by his employer. Where this gave rise to claims for overtime or subsistence, the complainant would complete forms provided by the employer, detailing items such as relevant dates and places, dispatch reference numbers, and the amounts claimed. The employer made use of a dispatch system intended to ensure the most efficient use of drivers and vehicles, particularly as they provided response in emergency situations. This system logged the performance and completion of service calls, when vehicles were out on calls or back at base, and when drivers were on or off duty.

The complainant had made a claim for overtime and subsistence. The employer rejected this because of inconsistencies between the details on the complainant’s claim form and those recorded on the employer’s dispatch system . The complainant objected to the use of data from the dispatch system for this purpose and complained to The Data Protection Commission (DPC).

The DPC considered whether the use of data from the dispatch system to verify overtime and subsistence claims was in line with fair processing requirements. The fairness of the processing was to be assessed by reference to whether the complainant and fellow employees had been made aware of the employer’s use of the data for that purpose, whether that processing was compatible with the purpose for which the data was collected, and whether the employer had a legal basis for that processing.

The employer did not have a written policy on the use of the dispatch system . Instead, it relied on the “general awareness” of employees that the system was used for that purpose. The employer pointed out that such use had been noted in an arrangement with its employees’ trade unions some years previously. The DPC noted that overtime and subsistence claims required employees to include relevant dispatch reference numbers from the dispatch system. The DPC took the view that the inclusion of relevant dispatch system reference numbers in overtime and subsistence claims indicated that employees were aware that the data was used not just for logistical processing but also to verify their claims . Even if the major purpose of the dispatch system was to aid logistics, its use to verify overtime claims was not incompatible with that purpose, as that data was the only means available to the employer to verify claims.

The DPC noted that applicable financial regulations required the employer to verify overtime and subsistence claims. The processing to verify overtime and subsistence claims was necessary not just to comply with that legal obligation, but to perform the complainant’s employment contract and for reasons of legitimate interests of the employers.