Chinese (Simplified) 
Chinese (Traditional) 
English 
French 
Alemão 
Italian 
Japanese 
Norwegian 
Spanish 
4 min read
2 comments
With geolocation, judges can now verify transit times and hold companies accountable for overtime, reinforcing the need for clear policies and employee consent regarding monitoring.
A geolocation The use of corporate cell phones has become a permanent fixture in the Labor Court's evidentiary arsenal. Recent decisions validate the use of location data to measure the working hours of external employees, resulting in overtime payments when work beyond contractual hours is proven.
In line with the TST's understanding, the judgments emphasize that the collection must be proportional, limited to the periods discussed in the process and restricted to the device provided by the company, reducing the risk of privacy breaches. The movement presses employers to review timekeeping, internal policies and LGPD compliance routines.
What has changed with the use of geolocation in the labor process
The acceptance of location records as robust digital evidence changes the dynamics of cases involving workers in transit, such as salespeople, field technicians, and delivery drivers.
-
Brazilian Chamber approves bill that limits land expropriation and changes agrarian reform rules three decades after the original law.
-
With the new law signed by Lula, banks are required to disclose all costs, allow automatic salary portability, and create credit options with lower interest rates.
-
'CPF for Real Estate' starts in 2026 and could change how your property tax is calculated, but the tax authorities deny a tax increase.
-
So, does paying tolls infringe on the right to come and go? Here's what the law clearly states.
In scenarios where the traditional point is unfeasible, the displacement metadata help to reconstruct the beginning and end of the journey, as well as waiting periods and routes between customers.
This shift does not make geolocation absolute proof. Judges have demanded additional evidence, such as work orders, visit notes, corporate messages and testimonials.
The goal is to avoid automatic conclusions from point coordinates and ensure that the operational context is considered.
Legal limits: proportionality, purpose and privacy
The courts have reinforced three goals. First, proportionality: screening should only occur when necessary for the legitimate purpose of management and occupational safety.
Second, the purpose: Using location data for journey tracking does not authorize the use of other information on the device.
Third, minimization: the time frame must be restricted to the days and times disputed in the process.
A LGPD requires transparency regarding the collection and processing of this data. Internal policies must specify monitoring procedures, the legal basis adopted, retention periods, and who accesses the information.
Monitoring personal cell phones without express consent is risky, and, even with consent, the excess can be invalidated judicially for violating personality rights.
How companies should adapt to reduce liabilities
For field areas, formal routing and integrations between OS, CRM and payroll raise the quality of records.
Adoption of restrictive BYOD policies or, preferably, dedicated corporate devices reduces privacy conflicts.
Geolocation logs must have governance, encryption and audit trails, with access only by authorized profiles.
In contracts and regulations, clarity about schedules, shifts and travel time avoid interpretations that turn all traffic into overtime.
Periodic training helps managers to do not request activities outside of working hours through informal channels, a practice that often appears in expert reports as an indication of overwork.
What changes for the commuter
For the external employee, the geolocation can strengthen overtime recognition, especially when point control does not reflect the reality on the ground.
Stand personal records consistent with the routes, such as visit reports and travel receipts, increases the consistency of the evidence set.
It is essential to understand the rules for using corporate cell phones. If the device is monitored, using the device for personal purposes, including after hours, can increase data exposure.
Request the scope of monitoring in writing and information review channels avoid surprises in future disputes.
Controversies and gray areas still under debate
Despite the progress, regional differences persist. TRTs have denied, in specific cases, the isolated prevalence of geolocation when the technology does not accurately demonstrate the effective work or when there are inconsistencies in the data.
In others, the prevailing qualified testimonial evidence, especially if the company cannot demonstrate governance over the records collected.
Also under discussion the treatment of travel time, waiting periods between appointments and breaks.
The tendency is to analyze case by case, distinguishing what is time at the employer's disposal from what is a legitimate break, always in light of the reality of external work and contractual guidelines.
The message from the courts: technology matters, governance decides
The use of geolocation as evidence indicates that Labor Justice values objective data. However, decisions have rewarded methodological coherence, integrity of evidence and respect for privacy.
Companies that structure processes, policies and controls aligned with the LGPD and collaborators who preserve records compatible with the real routine tend to have better predictability in disputes.
Do you agree that geolocation is the fairest way to measure the hours of street workers, or do you fear abuse and excessive surveillance? In what situations does it best demonstrate overwork, and in which situations does it fail? Share your thoughts in the comments, especially if you work in the field or manage field teams.
And who works with their own cell phone???
"The **** that hits Chico, hits Francisco." In other words, geolocation is welcome for both parties in the era of home offices, bus offices, shopping offices, beach offices, vacation offices, and even sleepovers. The expectation is that the tool be properly used to best benefit the working relationship. This is a matter of responsibility and integrity on the part of the employer, the employer, the lawyer, and the judge.