- Extension of the platform work approach to all employment relationships with additional protection against algorithmic management.
- Prohibition of processing sensitive data such as emotions, neurodata, private communication and location outside of work.
- Duties of transparency, consultation, effective human oversight and integration of risks into health and safety systems.
On December 17, 2025, the Employment Committee of the EU Parliament Recommendations to the Commission for a Directive on algorithmic management in the workplace adopted (Case file.
According to Art. 225 TFEU Parliament may request the Commission to submit a legislative proposal. If the report on the legislative initiative is adopted, the Commission has three months to inform Parliament of the planned next steps or to justify why it does not comply with Parliament’s demands.
In terms of content, the draft follows on from the Platform working guideline (see also Pärli in Jusletter 2024), but extends its approach to all employment relationships. The list of prohibitions in Art. 5 partially overlaps with Art. 5 AI Act (prohibited AI practices), but goes further, for example in the explicit prohibition of Neurosurveillance and the processing of data on the emotional state.
Need for regulation
According to the report, between a quarter and 80% of companies in the EU use at least one form of algorithmic management. 26.5% of employees are said to be supervised by software, with 27.4% having tasks assigned via software.
The report first identifies gaps in the existing legal framework. The Platform Work Directive is based on Platform work limited:
[T]he Platform Work Directive’s provisions on algorithmic management (in particular workers‘ rights to transparency, human review, worker information and consultation and OSH) only apply to persons performing platform work leaving other workers increasingly subject to algorithmic management less protected; underlines the need to ensure equal treatment of all workers […]
Unlike the final version, the draft report from summer 2025 contained even clearer statements on the protection gaps in the AI Act and the GDPR:
- The AI Act classifies work-related AI systems as high-risk, but focuses on market access and product safety:
The AI Act represents a significant step forward in regulating high-risk artificial intelligence systems, it nevertheless remains insufficient to fully address the challenges posed by algorithmic management in the workplace. Although it classifies work-related AI tools as high-risk, its primary focus is on market placement, product safety, and compliance obligations for providers and users, and not on the employer-worker relationship. Furthermore, the AI Act does not apply to algorithmic management systems that are not AI-based, leaving a regulatory gap in addressing the broader impact of digital management tools on workers‘ rights, working conditions, and social dialogue.
- The GDPR in turn, dates back to 2016 and was not designed for the specific challenges of data protection in the workplace:
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 […] dates back to 2016 and was not specifically designed to address the particular challenges of data protection in the workplace […] Article 15(1), point (h), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, which lays down the transparency requirements for and the limitations of data processing, only provides for clear prohibitions in the case of fully automated decision-making processes, which are therefore not sufficient in most employment-related contexts. What is more, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 adopts individualistic approach and does not grant collective rights. Since the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 88 on the protection of workers‘ personal data has been poorly implemented and remains largely ineffective in nearly all Member States.
„Algorithmic management“
The resolution no longer contains a definition of algorithmic management, unlike the draft, but refers to the definition in the Platform Working Directive:
algorithmic management‘ should be defined as automated monitoring systems and automated decision-making systems.
The Platform Work Directive defines these terms in Art. 2:
- Automated monitoring systems: Systems for monitoring, supervision or performance evaluation by electronic means
- Automated decision-making systemsSystems that make or support decisions that significantly influence working conditions
Recommendations to the Commission
The annex contains eleven recommendations to the EU Commission for a proposal for a directive:
Transparency and information obligations (recommendation 3)
Employers should inform the affected employees and their representatives in writing about
- Use or planned use of algorithmic management systems
- Effects on working conditions and employment status
- Categories of data collected, processing purposes and recipients
- Mechanisms of human supervision
- Training and support measures
Applicants should also be informed about automated decision-making systems.
Consultation obligations (recommendation 4)
The introduction of new systems relating to remuneration, evaluation, work organization, task allocation or working hours should trigger consultation obligations.
Prohibited practices (Recommendation 5)
The resolution calls for a ban on the processing of the following data:
- Emotions, moods, brain activity or biometric data
- Private communication, also with colleagues or employee representatives
- Behavior outside of working hours or in private areas; location tracking outside of working hours
- Data that allow conclusions to be drawn about trade union activities or the exercise of other fundamental rights
- special data in accordance with Art. 9 GDPR (health, ethnicity, religion, political opinion, sexual orientation, etc.) and conclusions about such data
These prohibitions should also apply to the application process.
Human supervision (recommendation 6)
The resolution calls for continuous and effective human oversight of all decisions, that are made or supported by algorithmic management:
The persons responsible for oversight and evaluation should have the competence, training and authority necessary to exercise those functions, including the authority to override automated decisions.
Employees should have a Right to declaration for decisions that affect key aspects of their employment relationship. Automation is prohibited for certain decisions:
Decisions concerning the initiation or termination of employment, the renewal or non-renewal of a contractual agreement, or any changes in remuneration or disciplinary action should always be taken by a human being and should be subject to human review.
Occupational health and safety (recommendation 7)
Employers should integrate the risks of algorithmic systems into their occupational health and safety systems, including psychosocial and ergonomic risks as well as undue pressure on employees.
Supervision (recommendations 8 and 10)
The Labor inspectorates should be responsible for monitoring. In addition, the Data protection authorities monitor the application of the provisions on data processing in the employment context, in cooperation with the labor authorities.
Proportionality and SMEs
SMEs should be spared too much bureaucracy:
The proposal should respect the principle of proportionality and should ensure that the administrative and compliance burden imposed is appropriate to the size of the employer and the resources at its disposal, the nature of the technologies used, and the level of the risk involved, particularly with regard to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.