Works Council Consent for Recruitment Changes: When It Applies

After a bad quarter, the operations director at an agency in Utrecht has an idea. Every candidate passed from a recruiter to a planner, or from a planner to an administrator, will get a timer. A weekly dashboard will show how long each person took to act. She sketches it for the HR director, who likes the idea of seeing where candidates wait. Then he asks one question: "Have we talked to the works council?"

It is a good question. A change meant to fix the hiring process can also change how staff are observed. This article draws on Radius Hire's 2026 research paper on frontline hiring handoffs and on the text of the law. For each point we say whether it is law in force, law with a future start date, a proposal, official guidance, or our own reading.

What is a works council in the Netherlands, and does your company have one?

It is the elected body that represents staff in talks with the employer. In Dutch it is called the ondernemingsraad. An employer must set one up for a company in which, as a rule, at least 50 people work (WOR, Article 2(1)). This is law in force.

Who counts matters, because consent rights only cover rules for people working in the company. Under Article 1 of the WOR:

Companies with 10 to 49 people have lighter rules. See the FAQ.

When is works council consent needed for recruitment changes?

Only when all five conditions in Article 27 are met:

If all five are met, the employer must ask for consent before deciding. The request goes to the council in writing, with reasons and expected effects on staff, and is discussed at least once in a consultation meeting (Article 27(2)). If the council refuses, the employer can ask the cantonal court (kantonrechter) for permission (Article 27(4)). A decision taken without consent or permission is void if the council says so in writing within one month (Article 27(5)).

Two advice rights can also apply. They let the council give its view, not block the decision: an important new technological facility (Article 25(1)(k)), and recruiting or hiring in workers as a group (Article 25(1)(g)).

Bill 36949 (pay transparency), a proposal on 20 October 2026, would rewrite point (c) on pay systems. It does not change points (e), (k) or (l).

Do rules on recruiting outside candidates count as appointment policy?

Usually yes, if they are general rules on how vacancies are filled. The WOR does not define appointment policy, so courts have filled the gap:

We found no Supreme Court ruling on rules that apply only to outside candidates. In our reading, a general rule on how applicants are screened, interviewed or selected usually falls under point (e), because it shapes who joins the staff and usually also applies to staff who apply. Whether to hire at all, and each individual hire, do not.

For staffing agencies, two companies can be involved. The agency's works council covers rules for the agency's staff and the agency workers it employs. At the client, agency workers count only after 15 months, and the client's works council has an advice right on every planned decision to hire in workers as a group, including new framework agreements with agencies (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 3 November 2023).

Which recruitment changes might need consent?

It depends on what changes. The research paper advises taking advice before you introduce a new screening tool or a permanent way of tracking staff response times. Each row below is a matter to check, not a conclusion that consent is needed.

Point (k) is about the personal data of staff, not of candidates. A system built for candidate data can still record what staff do in it.

Does timing handoffs count as monitoring staff?

It can, if the timing is per person. The research paper gives permanently tracking how fast each person acts on a handoff as an example of a system that can monitor staff performance, which may fall under Article 27(1)(l).

Official guidance points the same way. The Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, AP) says a system is a staff-monitoring system even when the employer does not use it to monitor staff but could, and names workflow and case-handling systems among its examples. The council can also consent with conditions.

The paper's own audit is designed differently (see how to map your recruitment process in two weeks). It covers one role at one site, for one period, on 20 to 30 candidate journeys. It uses reference numbers or initials, not full names. And its scores rate handoffs, not people.

The paper adds a warning: long waits can mean someone is overloaded, so check workload first.

When does a collective labour agreement settle it?

When it already settles the matter in substance for your company. Under Article 27(3), consent is not needed where a collective labour agreement (collectieve arbeidsovereenkomst, CAO), or terms of employment set by a public body, already settle the matter in substance.

The law does not list which agreements settle which matters. That depends on the text of your agreement and the change you plan.

How do the WOR, the GDPR and the AI Act fit together?

They are separate laws that ask different questions. A new hiring tool can trigger all three, or none.

Does the EU AI Act require works council consent?

No. It adds duties to inform, not a consent right.

Is a recruitment tool high-risk? Not automatically. Annex III, point 4(a) lists AI systems intended for recruitment or selection, such as filtering applications and evaluating candidates. Point 4(b) includes systems that allocate tasks based on behaviour or traits, or monitor and evaluate workers. These count as high-risk (Article 6(2)), with one exception. A listed system is not high-risk where it poses no significant risk of harm, including by not materially influencing decisions, and it is intended for a narrow procedural task, to improve a completed human activity, to detect decision patterns without replacing human assessment, or for preparatory work (Article 6(3)). The exception never applies if the system profiles people. A provider relying on it must document its assessment first (Article 6(4)). The European Commission published draft classification guidelines on 19 May 2026; on 20 October 2026 they are still a draft. This article does not classify any product, including Radius.

When do the high-risk rules apply? From 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems, under Article 113 as amended by the Digital Omnibus on AI (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 of 8 July 2026). One transitional rule matters: a high-risk system already placed on the market or put into service before that date falls under these rules only if its design changes significantly after it (Article 111(2)). Systems used by public authorities must comply by 2 August 2030.

What must an employer do then? Before putting a high-risk system into service or using it at the workplace, an employer must inform workers' representatives and the affected workers (Article 26(7)). It must give human oversight to people with the necessary competence, training and authority (Article 26(2)). Where the system makes or helps make decisions about people, it must tell them the system is used (Article 26(11)).

Who are the "affected workers"? Article 26(7) speaks of workers who will be subject to the system, not candidates. Outside candidates are covered by the separate duty in Article 26(11). The Act does not list which staff count. In our reading, staff the tool assesses, such as internal applicants, are covered. Whether recruiters who only operate the tool are covered is not settled by the text. Our advice is to inform them too.

Article 26(7) says the information is given, where applicable, in line with national rules and practice on informing workers. In our reading, this duty sits next to the consent question under the WOR, not in place of it. For the wider AI Act rules on hiring, see the EU AI Act in recruitment. For what technology should assess and what people must decide, see AI in Hiring: What Technology Should Evaluate, and What People Must Decide.

What does this mean for providers, agencies and employers?

Each has a different job. This is our reading, not a legal procedure.

How should you involve the works council?

Early, and with the facts, as the research paper advises. This is good practice, not a legal procedure. Before anything is built or bought, give the council a description covering:

If the tool assesses candidates, add who makes the final decision. Our position is that a named person, not the tool, should make each hiring decision. The Tool Should Never Be the One Saying No explains why.

How Radius helps

Radius Hire is an AI hiring platform for frontline roles, built in Amsterdam for staffing agencies and employers who hire for the work floor. It is built to source, interview and verify applicants, while a person makes every hiring decision. The AI Interviewer tells candidates they are talking to an AI interviewer, and each interview keeps a recording, a transcript and a summary that recruiters read. Match shows when each requirement was answered. Radius never rejects a candidate on its own, and recruiters can overrule any suggestion. Those are facts you can put in front of your works council when you check the five conditions.