Employee Data in Municipalities: Common KVKK Mistakes in Personnel Records

⏱️ Reading time: 12 min · 📁 Category: KVKK, Employee Data & Public Institutions

Employee Data in Municipalities: Common KVKK Mistakes in Personnel Records

Metropolitan municipalities process not only citizen data, but also
personnel records and health, disciplinary, performance and security data relating to thousands of employees.
Board decisions and audit practices show that
a significant proportion of KVKK violations in municipalities
results from incorrect and disproportionate processing of employee data in these institutions.

The most serious misconception is:
“They are our employees, so we can process any data we want.”
In terms of KVKK, this approach is completely wrong.
This article examines the most common
structural and recurring errors in municipal personnel data under clear headings.

Basic principle:
Being an employer does not authorize unlimited data processing. 1) Basing personnel data processing on “explicit consent”

One of the most common mistakes in municipalities
is trying to legitimise employee data processing through explicit consent.
Yet in an employer–employee relationship, free choice is often absent.

• Blanket consent forms on joining the organisation
• Work becoming harder in practice if consent is refused
• Uncertainty about how the process will operate if consent is withdrawn

The Board’s approach:
For employee data, the primary basis is legal obligations and the contractual relationship, rather than explicit consent. 2) Disproportionate processing of leave, medical certificates and health data

Data such as annual leave, leave for personal reasons, medical certificates and disability status
often fall within special categories of personal data under the law.
Common practices involving these data in municipalities include:

• Collecting unnecessary details
• Sharing with departments that have no relevant role
• Retaining data indefinitely

These are among the most common examples of violations.

3) Turning camera recordings into a staff monitoring tool

Camera systems in municipal buildings are often
installed for “security”;
in practice, however, they are used to monitor employees’ working behaviour,
check late arrivals and early departures, or conduct disciplinary investigations.

• Camera surveillance of rest areas
• Making camera recordings a basis for performance evaluation
• Failing to inform staff about this use

Camera systems
are not disciplinary or performance management tools. 4) Excessive data in access and working-time tracking systems

Card-based access, fingerprint, facial recognition and biometric systems
are widely used in municipalities.
Common problems with these systems include:

• Imposed without an alternative
• Unnecessary preference for biometric data
• Failure to define retention and access policies

KVKK principle:
If the same goal can be achieved through a less invasive method, biometric data cannot be used. 5) Purpose drift in disciplinary investigations

Disciplinary proceedings are among the areas in which municipal personnel data
most easily end up being used outside their intended purpose.

• Giving more people than necessary access to investigation files
• Automatic use of old disciplinary records in new processes
• Failing to delete data after the investigation ends

Disciplinary data must not become a permanent label attached to an employee through indefinite retention.

6) Uncontrolled internal sharing of personnel data

Municipal personnel information is often
made available for unrestricted sharing because it is “internal”.

• Disproportionate data sharing with trade unions
• Transfers to municipal subsidiaries without clear arrangements
• Sending unnecessary details to senior management

In-house sharing is also covered by KVKK.
“Internal” does not automatically mean lawful. 7) Generic and ineffective employee privacy notices

Employee privacy notices in most municipalities:

• Contain general statements
• Do not reflect actual practice
• Make it harder for employees to exercise their rights in practice

The Board considers this
a breach of the transparency obligation under the law.

Why Are Violations Repeated in Employee Data?

• Employer instincts taking precedence over legal analysis
• HR processes not being assessed against KVKK requirements
• Discipline and security pressure
• Failure to consider alternative, less intrusive solutions

Employee data violations often stem not from technology, but from
unclear limits on authority. What should municipalities do? (Brief roadmap)

• Separate and detailed data inventory must be prepared for personnel data
• The legal basis for each process must be clearly defined
• Assess biometric and camera systems for proportionality
• Clarify retention and destruction rules for disciplinary and security data
• Provide dedicated KVKK awareness training for HR staff and managers

Conclusion

Employee data in municipalities
is one of the least visible yet highest-risk areas under KVKK.
Violations often remain hidden from public view;
however, a complaint or audit can result in
substantial administrative sanctions and reputational damage for the municipality.

Protecting personnel data
is not only a legal obligation;
it is also a key element of institutional fairness and a culture of trust.

KVKK risk analysis for employee data