Works Councils Act (WOR), Netherlands

The entrepreneur needs the consent of the works council for every proposed decision to adopt, amend or withdraw an arrangement on facilities aimed at, or suitable for, observing or checking the presence, behaviour or performance of the persons working in the undertaking (personnel tracking systems: camera surveillance, email and internet monitoring, keystroke and screenshot tools, GPS and vehicle telematics, access badges and biometric time clocks, call recording, productivity scoring), insofar as it concerns all or a group of the persons working in the undertaking. The proposal is submitted in writing with reasons and expected consequences, consent follows at least one consultation meeting, and the entrepreneur states in writing which decision he took and from when he will implement it (27(2)); without consent or the cantonal court's permission the decision is void if the council invokes nullity in writing within one month (27(4) and (5)). The test is suitability, not intent: a facility capable of monitoring staff needs consent even if bought for another purpose. The Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens' 'OR-privacyboekje' gives test questions for personnel tracking systems; the GDPR (lawful basis, proportionality, transparency, a DPIA where the AP list requires one, such as covert camera surveillance by employers) applies on top of consent.

For each decision within art. 27(1), the entrepreneur submits the decision to be taken in writing to the works council with an overview of the reasons and of the consequences it is expected to have for the workforce; the council decides only after at least one consultation meeting and communicates its reasoned decision in writing; after that decision the entrepreneur informs the council as soon as possible in writing which decision he has taken and from which date he will implement it.

Where the entrepreneur has not obtained the council's consent, he may ask the cantonal court for permission to take the decision; the court grants it only if the council's refusal is unreasonable or the decision is required by compelling organisational, economic or social reasons. A decision taken without consent or permission is void if the council invokes nullity in writing within one month after the decision notice or after it became apparent that the decision was being applied (27(5)); the council may ask the court to bar the entrepreneur from applying it (27(6)). Any extra consent rights agreed under art. 32 follow the same rules.

The entrepreneur needs the consent of the works council for every proposed decision to adopt, amend or withdraw an arrangement on the processing and protection of the personal data of the persons working in the undertaking (for example a staff privacy regulation, retention periods, access to HR data, sharing with processors), insofar as it concerns all or a group of the persons working in the undertaking. The proposal is submitted in writing with reasons and expected consequences, consent follows at least one consultation meeting, and the entrepreneur states in writing which decision he took and from when he will implement it (27(2)); without consent or the cantonal court's permission the decision is void if the council invokes nullity in writing within one month (27(4) and (5)). The Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens explains the route in its 'OR-privacyboekje' (the works council's role in privacy at work): an arrangement is any set of rules on processing staff data, including a privacy regulation. Art. 33(3) UAVG adds that criminal-offence data about staff may be processed only under rules adopted through this WOR procedure.