Justice prohibits H&M from searching workers' bags and lockers: "It is an invasion of privacy"

MadridThe Swedish fashion giant H&M will not be able to search the personal bags or lockers of its employees, as it has been doing until now to check if they had stolen. The National High Court has declared this practice null and void and orders the company to cease carrying it out "immediately".

In this way, the social chamber upholds a lawsuit filed by the UGT union –later joined by CCOO– and considers that the measures constitute an "unjustified invasion of privacy" of employees, as stated in the ruling made public this Monday but issued on July 7.

During the proceedings, it was proven that Hennes and Mauritz (H&M) has been carrying out a daily check of the personal bags of employees on the last shift as they leave, after they have clocked out, which consists of a "visual inspection of the bag, which is opened by the supervisor or security personnel, who inspects it for a few seconds". These employees left through the employee exit, not the main one, where the security arches are located to detect thefts. Furthermore, it has also been proven that employees on other shifts, who leave through the main entrance, have not received the same checks.

Regarding the supervision of lockers, it was carried out once a month in a random and regular manner, according to the National High Court. It was the employee who opened the locker, but then the supervisor or security personnel carried out a visual inspection.

Undetermined thefts

The company maintained that the measure pursued a "legitimate aim" such as product losses caused by, among other causes, "thefts committed by employees". However, the judges consider that "it has not been proven what the amount of losses produced by thefts or other practices of product misappropriation by workers is".

Furthermore, the social chamber highlights that the company, during the interrogation phase, has acknowledged that it "cannot determine" the amount attributable to losses due to employee theft, stating that "it is not possible to determine the [economic] amount of losses attributable to each of the four possibilities foreseen by the company". Faced with the loss of a product, the company points to external theft, internal theft, supplier fraud, and administrative error.

According to the National High Court, between 2024 and 2026, only six H&M workers, out of a staff of 4,600 employees in Spain, were involved in disciplinary proceedings for theft. This, added to the fact that no data is provided regarding the imposition of less serious sanctions, "evidences that there is no situation that can justify this control measure," indicate the magistrates. Therefore, the National High Court concludes that "the implementation of this [surveillance] measure is not lawful because there is no factual situation to justify it."

Furthermore, the magistrates consider that it is not an essential measure because there are other less invasive control measures through which the objective of avoiding thefts can be achieved, and which are as effective as visual inspection. They give as an example the installation of security arches at secondary doors, through which employees enter, which "would make the control of personal bags unnecessary."

"The visual inspection of bags means sacrificing the privacy of workers on the last shift [...], who see their right to privacy unjustifiably restricted by applying a control measure that pursues an unproven purpose, and considering that less invasive measures exist," concludes the chamber. Regarding the inspection of lockers, it considers it to be a "preventive and intimidating" control, and not a "reaction to proven losses." "Consequently [....], it constitutes an unjustified invasion of their privacy," the sentence adds.