Guides / GUIDE-004

Involving the works council: co-determination for AI

How to involve the works council (Betriebsrat) early and properly when introducing AI, using §87(1) no. 6, §90, §80(3) and §95 BetrVG, and how to reach a framework works agreement on AI.

If your company has an elected works council, almost every AI tool that runs on company accounts needs its involvement, and many need its consent. This guide shows which BetrVG rights apply, when to start talking, and how a framework works agreement on AI (KI-Rahmenbetriebsvereinbarung) lets you roll out further use cases without renegotiating each one.

Why it matters

  • No consent, no rollout. Where §87(1) no. 6 BetrVG applies, the employer may not introduce or use the system without the works council's agreement. If there is no agreement, the conciliation committee (Einigungsstelle, §87(2), §76 BetrVG) decides. The works council can also get a court injunction against use that skipped co-determination [1][3].
  • The threshold is low. The Federal Labour Court (BAG) holds that a technical system only has to be objectively suitable for monitoring the behaviour or performance of employees. The employer does not have to intend to monitor anyone. Collecting and storing data that can be linked to individuals is already enough (BAG, 13 Dec 2016, 1 ABR 7/15, the Facebook case) [4]. Most business software logs who did what and when. So M365 Copilot, meeting transcription, call analytics, ticket systems with AI and HR tools normally qualify.
  • The exception is narrow. In January 2024 the Labour Court of Hamburg (ArbG Hamburg, 24 BVGa 1/24) found no co-determination right when staff were allowed to use ChatGPT through their own private accounts, because the employer had no access to usage data. Commentators warn against reading this broadly. As soon as you provide company accounts, licences or an integration, §87(1) no. 6 is back on the table [3]. The DSK recommends company-provided accounts anyway (see [6]), so in practice you will usually need the works council.
  • Data protection is linked to this. A works agreement can serve as the legal basis for processing employee data under Art. 88 GDPR and §26(4) BDSG, provided it meets the requirements of Art. 88(2). The CJEU (C-34/21, 2023) questioned the general clause in §26(1) BDSG, and in C-65/23 (Dec 2024) it held that works agreements must fully comply with the GDPR [7]. A well-drafted works agreement makes the job easier for your DPO. A sloppy one is not a safe harbour.
  • Acceptance. Works agreements on AI from companies such as IBM, Bosch and DuPont show that works councils mostly want transparency, test access and a human making the final decision on personnel matters. They do not usually want to block AI [5]. Involving them early tends to speed up the rollout.

When you need it

Only companies with an elected works council (a council can be elected from 5 eligible employees, §1 BetrVG). In the public sector the staff council (Personalrat) has comparable rights under the BPersVG or the relevant state staff representation law. Check that law separately, because the BetrVG AI amendments do not apply to it directly [1].

Trigger Right What it means
You plan work processes or workplaces involving AI (pilot ideas, process redesign) §90(1) no. 3, §90(2) Inform the council in good time, with the necessary documents, and consult it. Do this before decisions are fixed [1][2].
The tool logs user activity or outputs that can be linked to individuals §87(1) no. 6 Genuine co-determination. You need the council's consent before going live, and that includes the pilot [3][4].
The council needs to understand the AI system §80(3) sentence 2 Bringing in an external expert is deemed necessary. You still agree on the expert and the cost with the council, but you cannot argue that no expert is needed [1][2].
AI is used to set or apply selection criteria for hiring, transfers or dismissals §95(2a) with §95(1),(2) Selection guidelines need consent (and from 500 employees the council can demand them). This also applies when an AI system drafts or applies them [1].
AI evaluates performance or feeds appraisals §94 (appraisal principles), §87(1) no. 6 Consent is needed for appraisal criteria and for the system.
AI fundamentally changes how work is done (fundamentally new work methods) §111 no. 5 Check whether this is a change in operations requiring a reconciliation of interests (Interessenausgleich). Get legal advice.

Timing rule of thumb: contact the council during discovery (GUIDE-001), when the pilot scope is set (GUIDE-009), and before every major extension of scope.

Who is involved

  • Management: decides on the approach and signs the works agreement. Names one person who is accountable for the process.
  • Works council: has information, consultation and co-determination rights. Often nominates an AI or IT committee and an external expert.
  • HR / labour law: leads the negotiation, drafts the agreement and links it to §94/§95 topics.
  • IT: explains data flows, logs, admin rights and retention periods, and can show what can be switched off (for example usage analytics or manager dashboards).
  • DPO: checks the legal basis and the DPIA. Makes sure the agreement meets Art. 88 GDPR (see GUIDE-005).
  • External expert (§80(3)): advises the council. Agree in advance on scope, time budget and fee.

Step by step

  1. Map your AI landscape (1–2 days). List the AI tools that are planned or already in use, including AI features switched on inside existing software (M365, CRM, ERP, ticketing). For each one, note what is logged, who can see it, and whether output can be traced back to individuals. Shadow AI belongs on this list too (see GUIDE-007).
  2. Inform the council early (1 meeting). Present your AI plans under §90 before any purchase or pilot decision. Bring a short fact sheet: purpose, vendor, data categories, hosting, logs, roles with access, expected effect on jobs and tasks. Offer a demo.
  3. Agree on the process, not just the tool (1–2 meetings). Propose a two-level model: - a framework works agreement on AI that sets the general rules once; - a short annex per use case (1–3 pages) that the parties can agree quickly. This prevents a full negotiation for every new feature.
  4. Draft the framework agreement (4–12 weeks, depending on how much trust there is). Typical content [5][8]: - scope and a working definition of "AI system" (the BetrVG has none [1]); - no performance or behaviour monitoring through AI usage data, plus a ban on using such data for disciplinary measures, with clearly listed exceptions (security incidents, abuse investigations under the four-eyes principle); - human final decision on all personnel matters (hiring, appraisal, dismissal), in line with §95(2a); - transparency: a register of approved AI systems, a per-system data sheet, access to test environments for the council; - data protection: purposes, data categories, retention, roles and admin rights, DPIA where needed, AVV with vendors; - qualification: training offers, in line with AI Act Art. 4, which since 27 July 2026 requires deployers to take measures to support the AI literacy of staff (see GUIDE-006); - employment effects: consultation if tasks change, reskilling before redundancy; - procedure for new use cases: the annex template, response deadlines (for example 4 weeks), a fast-track for low-risk tools without personal logging; - evaluation: a joint review after 12 months, a right to an audit, and termination with continued effect (Nachwirkung) agreed or excluded.
  5. Use annexes per use case (1–4 weeks each). For each tool, document purpose, user groups, data, logs and their retention, which admin reports are switched off, and the evaluation date. Typical high-attention cases are listed in related_usecases: transcription, call analytics, agent assist, CV screening, shift planning, video-based safety and cycle-time analytics.
  6. Configure the tool to match the agreement. Turn off or restrict usage analytics, prompt-history access for admins and manager dashboards that the agreement excludes. Document the settings with screenshots. The council will ask for proof.
  7. Run the pilot with council participation. Give a council member a test account. Share evaluation results (quality, time saved, problems), not individual usage figures.
  8. Review and extend. Review annually; scope, vendor or model changes affecting data flows need an updated annex.

Checklist

  • [ ] Checked whether an elected works council or staff council exists and which law applies
  • [ ] Inventory of AI tools and AI features in existing software, including logging behaviour
  • [ ] Council informed under §90(1) no. 3 before purchase or pilot decision, with documents
  • [ ] Assessed for each tool whether §87(1) no. 6 applies (default assumption: yes, if company accounts are used)
  • [ ] Expert under §80(3) agreed (person, scope, budget)
  • [ ] Framework works agreement on AI with a no-monitoring clause, human final decision and an annex procedure
  • [ ] Annex signed per use case before going live, pilots included
  • [ ] HR selection or appraisal use checked against §94/§95(2a)
  • [ ] DPO confirmed the legal basis (Art. 88 GDPR / §26(4) BDSG), DPIA and AVV
  • [ ] Tool configuration matches the agreement and is documented
  • [ ] Review date set

Templates & tools

  • Ruhr-Universität Bochum / IG Metall: annotated model works agreement on AI (kommentierte Musterbetriebsvereinbarung KI). A participatory template written from the works council side. Useful for seeing what to expect [8].
  • Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Mitbestimmungspraxis no. 59 (2024), "So gelingt Mitbestimmung bei KI", plus the Praxistipp series with real works agreements (IBM, Bosch, DuPont) [5].
  • DSK guidance "Künstliche Intelligenz und Datenschutz" (May 2024). Contains employee data protection points that belong in the agreement: company accounts instead of private ones, rules on permitted use, staff awareness [6].
  • Mittelstand-Digital Zentren: free, vendor-neutral support with AI introduction. They do not give legal advice on works agreements [9].
  • Law texts: BetrVG on gesetze-im-internet.de (§§ 80, 87, 90, 94, 95, 111) [10].

Common pitfalls

  • "It's only a pilot." §87(1) no. 6 applies from the first user with logged activity. Get at least a pilot annex signed first.
  • Asking for consent when everything is already decided. If the council first hears about the tool from the purchase order, that breaches §90 and destroys trust. Inform at the planning stage.
  • Forgetting AI features in existing software. Copilot in M365, AI summaries in the CRM, and AI features in the HR suite are new functions and can trigger co-determination even if the base software is already covered by a works agreement.
  • Relying on the Hamburg ChatGPT decision. It covered only private accounts outside the employer's control [3]. It does not cover company licences.
  • Promising "no monitoring" but leaving admin reports on. Configure the tool so it matches what was promised, and prove it.
  • Fighting the §80(3) expert. The law treats the expert as necessary for AI [1][2]. Negotiate scope and budget instead, and use the expert to speed things up.
  • Copying a works agreement without a DPO review. Since C-65/23 a works agreement must comply fully with the GDPR [7].

Sources

  1. betriebsrat.de: "Künstliche Intelligenz – Neue Rechte für den Betriebsrat" (Betriebsrätemodernisierungsgesetz 2021: §90(1) no. 3, §80(3), §95(2a)). https://www.betriebsrat.de/fachartikel/kuenstliche-intelligenz/kuenstliche-intelligenz-neue-rechte-fuer-den-betriebsrat-3133662
  2. CMS: "Einführung von KI im Unternehmen – Einbindung des Betriebsrats". https://cms.law/de/deu/legal-updates/einfuehrung-von-ki-im-unternehmen-einbindung-des-betriebsrats
  3. Gleiss Lutz: "Arbeitsgericht Hamburg zu ChatGPT: kein Mitbestimmungsrecht des Betriebsrats" (ArbG Hamburg, 16 Jan 2024, 24 BVGa 1/24). https://www.gleisslutz.com/de/know-how/arbeitsgericht-hamburg-zu-chatgpt-kein-mitbestimmungsrecht-des-betriebsrats
  4. Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Magazin Mitbestimmung: BAG decision on the Facebook presence (BAG 13 Dec 2016, 1 ABR 7/15). https://www.boeckler.de/de/magazin-mitbestimmung-2744-bag-beschluss-betriebsrat-muss-beim-facebook-auftritt-mitreden-6044.htm, plus LTO: https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bag-1-abr-7-15-mitbestimmung-betriebsrat-facebook-seite-arbeitgeber-postings-ueberwachung-arbeitnehmer/2
  5. Hans-Böckler-Stiftung: "Praxisbeispiele KI und Mitbestimmung" and Magazin Mitbestimmung Praxistipp (IBM, Bosch, DuPont). https://www.mitbestimmung.de/html/praxisbeispiele-ki-und-mitbestimmung-46105.html, https://www.boeckler.de/de/magazin-mitbestimmung-2744-ki-bei-ibm-und-dupont-45640.htm
  6. Datenschutzkonferenz (DSK): Orientierungshilfe "Künstliche Intelligenz und Datenschutz", v1.0, 6 May 2024. https://www.datenschutz-bayern.de/dsbk-ent/DSK_OH_KI_und_Datenschutz.pdf, press release: https://datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/pm/2024_05_06_DSK_PM_OH_KI_und_Datenschutz.pdf
  7. Kliemt: "Neue EuGH-Rechtsprechung zum Datenschutz – Betriebsvereinbarungen müssen umfassend mit der DSGVO vereinbar sein" (C-65/23), and CMS on C-34/21. https://www.kliemt.blog/2025/01/06/neue-eugh-rechtsprechung-zum-datenschutz-betriebsvereinbarungen-muessen-umfassend-mit-der-dsgvo-vereinbar-sein/, https://cms.law/de/deu/legal-updates/eugh-keine-generalklauseln-im-beschaeftigtendatenschutz
  8. Ruhr-Universität Bochum / IG Metall: kommentierte Musterbetriebsvereinbarung KI. https://www.rubigm.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/rubigm/mam/images/cooperation/kommentierte-musterbv-ki.pdf
  9. IHK Lüneburg-Wolfsburg: "Kostenfreie Unterstützung bei der Einführung von KI" (Mittelstand-Digital). https://www.ihk.de/ihklw/produkte/beratung-und-service/ecommerce-und-internet/kuenstliche-intelligenz/kostenfreie-unterstuetzung-bei-der-einfuehrung-von-ki-6396292
  10. Betriebsverfassungsgesetz (BetrVG), gesetze-im-internet.de. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/betrvg/

Accessed 2026-10.