NAVIGATING PEOPLE-CENTRIC CHALLENGES IN TECH IMPLEMENTATION
Read time: 3 minutes
As organizations adopt transformative technologies, especially AI, across their operations, people-related legal considerations under local labor laws (particularly across the European Union) must be at the forefront of their minds. In many jurisdictions, labor and data privacy laws, as well as employee representation structures, impose specific obligations that can significantly shape the rollout of new technologies.
As organizations adopt transformative technologies, especially AI, across their operations, people-related legal considerations under local labor laws (particularly across the European Union) must be at the forefront of their minds. In many jurisdictions, labor and data privacy laws, as well as employee representation structures, impose specific obligations that can significantly shape the rollout of new technologies.
In countries such as Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, employers are often required to consult with Works Councils, Trade Unions, or other employee representative bodies before implementing technology changes or systems that may impact working conditions, data privacy, or job roles. Even small-scale pilots can trigger these obligations. For example, German Works Councils have co-determination rights (i.e., must agree to implementation) over tech that monitors employee behavior performance, or working time (i.e., AI-driven productivity tools or time-tracking systems). Similarly, French courts have held that even early-stage rollouts may qualify as “implementation.” The EU AI Act adds another layer of complexity, requiring employers to inform workers and their representatives before deploying high-risk AI systems, such as those used in recruitment, workplace decision-making, or performance monitoring or evaluation, and to ensure transparency, human oversight, and conformity with EU standards. Insights from recent case law and practice highlight that:
In countries such as Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, employers are often required to consult with Works Councils, Trade Unions, or other employee representative bodies before implementing technology changes or systems that may impact working conditions, data privacy, or job roles. Even small-scale pilots can trigger these obligations. For example, German Works Councils have co-determination rights (i.e., must agree to implementation) over tech that monitors employee behavior performance, or working time (i.e., AI-driven productivity tools or time-tracking systems). Similarly, French courts have held that even early-stage rollouts may qualify as “implementation.” The EU AI Act adds another layer of complexity, requiring employers to inform workers and their representatives before deploying high-risk AI systems, such as those used in recruitment, workplace decision-making, or performance monitoring or evaluation, and to ensure transparency, human oversight, and conformity with EU standards. Insights from recent case law and practice highlight that:
Even minor technology system updates
(i.e., adding monitoring features to email or collaboration tools) can trigger consultation obligations.
Consultation must begin early
i.e., before vendor selection or contract signing, to avoid legal challenges or injunctions.
Cross-border coordination is essential
as communication strategies may need to be aligned and companies may need to manage both EU and local representation bodies, each with distinct formalities and expectations.
New technologies
including AI, virtual platforms, and augmented reality, raise new concerns around data use, fairness, discrimination, conduct, and health and safety, and these are areas where employee representatives increasingly expect transparency and safeguards.
Even minor technology system updates (i.e., adding monitoring features to email or collaboration tools) can trigger consultation obligations.
Consultation must begin early i.e., before vendor selection or contract signing, to avoid legal challenges or injunctions.
Cross-border coordination is essential as communication strategies may need to be aligned and companies may need to manage both EU and local representation bodies, each with distinct formalities and expectations.
New technologies including AI, virtual platforms, and augmented reality, raise new concerns around data use, fairness, discrimination, conduct, and health and safety, and these are areas where employee representatives increasingly expect transparency and safeguards.
For global companies, this means aligning global tech strategies with local compliance frameworks is essential.
Key takeaways
Engage early:
Involve local employee representatives at an early stage to build trust and avoid delays.
Map obligations:
Conduct jurisdiction-specific assessments to identify consultation triggers and timelines.
Coordinate centrally, act locally:
Develop a global framework for tech deployment, but tailor implementation to national labor laws and cultural expectations.
Be transparent:
Clearly communicate the purpose, scope, and impact of new technologies.
Co-create agreements or policies:
Consider involving representation bodies in policy creation. Where required, negotiate formal works agreements between employers and employee representatives (such as Works Councils or Trade Unions) that define usage terms, safeguards, and oversight mechanisms.
Anticipate concerns:
Address potential issues around surveillance, job displacement, and data protection proactively.
Monitor developments:
Stay informed on evolving EU legislation, including the proposed revisions to the European Works Council Directive.
By positioning employee engagement as a driver of transformation rather than a compliance hurdle, organizations can build trust, mitigate legal risks, and enable more seamless, globally consistent adoption of new technologies.
Authors
Related articles
Previous page
Next page
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.
Connect with us:
© Eversheds Sutherland. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.
Connect with us: