The Works Councils Act (WOR) contains two separate routes that can both come into play with automation and AI. One track concerns decisions that affect the organization as a whole: reorganization, changes to the division of tasks, significant investments in technology. This is governed by the right of advice. The other track concerns arrangements that affect the individual employee: how work is measured, monitored or assessed. This is governed by the right of consent. Both tracks can apply simultaneously to a single automation project, and that is precisely where planning often goes wrong.
The exact articles and the precise scope of both rights are set out in the WOR itself and in the accompanying explanatory notes. Because the text has been tightened on certain points and the interpretation in practice keeps shifting, the current statutory text and the associated case law is the place to rely on, not a summary on a knowledge base page.
The right of advice concerns decisions that change the structure or the way of working of the organization. In the context of automation, this involves matters such as: the introduction of a system that causes a substantial part of a department to work differently, an investment linked to the taking over of tasks by software, or a reorganization resulting from the deployment of AI. Not every tool purchased somewhere falls under this — the question is whether the decision has a significant influence on the organization of work, working conditions or employment.
The moment at which this comes into play lies before the final decision-making. Requesting advice afterwards, once the decision has effectively already been made, does not meet the intent of the law. This means the subject must be on the agenda as soon as the outlines of an automation plan become clear, not only at the roll-out stage.
The right of consent lies closer to the individual than to the organization. It concerns arrangements regarding: the processing of employees' personal data, systems for performance measurement or control, and provisions relating to monitoring presence, behavior or productivity. An AI system that automatically evaluates work, scores output, or records employees' usage data quickly touches on this track — even if the organizational impact itself appears limited.
This is a different assessment framework than the right of advice, and the two can exist independently of each other. A tool that changes little about the organizational structure, but does record employee behavior, can be subject to the right of consent without being subject to the right of advice. Conversely, a major automation initiative can be subject to the right of advice without containing any arrangement subject to the right of consent. The two routes must therefore be assessed separately, not as a single whole.
An analysis of which tasks can be taken over by AI — such as that of ftetoai — provides a factual picture of tasks and indicative hours, divided into three categories: AI can take over the task, AI works under supervision with human approval, or the work remains human work. Such an analysis is not a decision and not personnel advice; it is input for the conversation that must follow, including the conversation with the works council.
Whether and when that analysis becomes ready for decision-making, and thus subject to the right of advice, depends on what the organization intends to do with it. A figure on hours freed up says nothing in itself about what happens to a position or to personnel — that is a choice that lies with the employer and for which separate statutory requirements apply, with its own due-care framework. See also the page on due care when cutting positions for that. Anyone sharing a task analysis with the works council would do well to also show what a bandwidth does and does not say, so that an indicative percentage is not read as an established fact or as a disguised decision.
A common sticking point is not the question of whether something is subject to the right of advice or consent, but when that should come up. As soon as an automation plan moves from an idea to a concrete proposal — a supplier has been selected, a pilot has been carried out, a timeline has been drawn up — there is a risk that the statutory involvement of the works council comes too late. The law requires involvement at a point when the works council can still genuinely influence the decision, not at a point when only an explanation can still be given.
It is also wise to realize that a task analysis is a snapshot at a moment in time. Software capabilities change, and what a re-measurement shows may differ from the first analysis six months later. See what a re-measurement shows for how that works over time, and why a one-off analysis should not be used as a permanent given in a works council process.
The first step is often not legal but factual: knowing which tasks in your organization actually have a chance of being taken over by AI, which could work under supervision, and which remain human work. Based on that, you can, together with an advisor who assesses the WOR side, determine whether and when the right of advice or the right of consent applies. For that factual picture, ftetoai offers a free quickscan: twelve questions, no account required, with an indication of what portion of the hours in your profile could be taken over by AI today. The full work scan, with more detail per task, is still under construction. For the conversation with the works council itself, there is the page on informing the works council about AI, which addresses what you can and cannot substantiate with figures.
Vraag maar. Ik ken de kennisbank van deze site; wat ik niet weet, zeg ik erbij.
Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.