
How can the work council influence desk sharing?
The Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) provides for several instances of co-determination that may apply depending on the specific details of the desk-sharing arrangement. Those who are unaware of the rules risk injunctions and significant project delays.
What say does the works council have regarding desk sharing?
Anyone who wants to introduce desk sharing in their company will quickly face an important question: Does the works council need to be involved, and if so, to what extent? There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

The Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) provides for several instances of co-determination that may apply depending on the specific details of the desk-sharing arrangement. Those who are unaware of the rules risk injunctions and significant project delays.
How the work council can influence desk sharing: The Basics
- Desk-sharing itself is not subject to employee participation. The employer may implement it within the scope of its managerial authority. The specific details of its implementation almost never are.
- Section 87(1)(1) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) applies whenever rules concern employees’ conduct.
- Section 90 of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) requires employers to inform the works council early and in detail as soon as the planning phase begins.
- A workplace agreement is the most legally sound approach to desk sharing.
What does the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) stipulate regarding desk sharing?
In principle, an employer may require desk sharing. However, the specific details are almost always subject to co-determination. This applies in particular when rules regarding workplace use, digital booking tools, occupational health and safety, or changes to the work environment are involved.

The BetrVG contains several sections that may be relevant to desk sharing:
Section 87(1)(1) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) – Order in the workplace: The line between conduct regarding workplace order that is subject to co-determination and work-related conduct that is exempt from co-determination is blurred. Rules that directly require work performance (e.g., finding an available seat every day) are considered work-related conduct and are not subject to co-determination. Rules regarding workplace coexistence, such as the handling of personal belongings or the use of lockers, are considered organizational conduct and are subject to co-determination.
Section 87(1)(6) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) – Technical Monitoring Devices: Certain aspects of desk sharing, such as the use of booking or occupancy tools, fall under Section 87(1)(6) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) if they involve monitoring of employees’ performance and behavior. As soon as a booking tool collects data on attendance times or usage patterns that can be traced back to individual employees, the right to co-determination applies.
Section 87(1)(7) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) – Health Protection: Ergonomic requirements, risk assessments, and hygiene regulations for shared workstations may satisfy this criterion. The Baden-Württemberg Regional Labor Court rejected a right to co-determination under § 87 (1) No. 7 BetrVG in a specific case, as the introduction of desk sharing alone did not lead to a concrete risk to employees. A risk assessment would first have to establish this.
§ 90 BetrVG – Duty to Inform: § 90 BetrVG requires the employer to inform the works council in a timely and comprehensive manner about planned changes to workstations, work processes, or the work environment. This duty to inform applies as early as the planning phase. Anyone who informs the works council only after the restructuring measures have already begun has missed this deadline.
§ 111 BetrVG – Operational change: According to the case law of the Federal Labor Court, the introduction of desk sharing is generally not considered an operational change within the meaning of § 111 BetrVG. The situation is different if desk sharing is part of a larger restructuring.
What does case law say about the works council’s right to co-determination?
Case law on the subject of desk sharing and works councils is anything but consistent. In the past, the same concept has been interpreted differently by various courts. According to this view, it is not the concept as a whole that matters, but rather the individual provisions within it. Three court decisions illustrate where the courts draw the line.
Frankfurt/Main Labor Court: The Frankfurt/Main Labor Court granted a works council’s motion seeking to prevent the introduction of desk sharing. The court found that several aspects of co-determination were affected. The unilateral introduction of this work system by the employer was therefore deemed impermissible. The works council was ultimately able to halt further implementation by means of a preliminary injunction.
Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court (Case No. 3 TaBVGa 6/17): The Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court ruled in another case that the works council had no right of co-determination because the specific plan did not contain any provisions subject to co-determination. The question of where exactly the line is drawn between the specification of work duties not subject to co-determination and conduct subject to co-determination remains largely unresolved even after this decision. A fundamental ruling by the Federal Labor Court is still pending.
Baden-Württemberg Regional Labor Court (Case No. 21 TaBV 7/24, August 2024): According to this ruling, neither the decision to introduce desk sharing nor an accompanying clean-desk policy is, in and of itself, subject to works council co-determination. Both pertain to employees’ work conduct, which is not subject to co-determination. However, regulations governing the handling of personal belongings may affect workplace conduct subject to co-determination pursuant to Section 87(1)(1) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG). Regulations governing the use of certain company premises for break and work purposes may also be subject to co-determination.
In practice, this means that it is not the concept as a whole but each individual provision within it that must be reviewed for compliance with the requirement for employee participation. Those who make sweeping generalizations are almost always wrong.
What must be included in the workplace agreement on desk sharing?
In practice, a works council agreement is the most reliable way to implement the project in a legally compliant manner. This applies regardless of whether a genuine right to co-determination exists in a particular case or not.
To ensure that desk sharing and labor law are compatible, a legally sound company agreement must address these key points:
- Scope of Application: Which locations, departments, and employee groups are covered by the agreement? If it applies across multiple locations, the general works council is generally responsible.
- Booking rules: How do you reserve a workspace? Through the app, at a terminal, or on the spot? What are the advance notice requirements and cancellation deadlines?
- Clean Desk Policy: What personal items are allowed, how are they stored, and who provides lockers or rolling cabinets?
- Data Protection and Booking Systems: Digital booking systems may fall under Section 87(1)(6) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) if they collect data on booking times, duration of presence, or individual usage patterns. The agreement must specify what data is collected, how long it is stored, and who has access to it. Tools like PULT avoid this issue from the outset: analyses are conducted exclusively at the team level in aggregated form, without any references to individuals, and thus meet the requirements that works councils typically impose under Section 87(1)(6) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG).
- Ergonomics and Occupational Health and Safety: Guidelines for the setup of shared workstations (monitor, keyboard, chair), for cleaning, and for the special needs of individual employees.
- Special provisions: Pregnant employees, employees with disabilities, or those in certain job roles may be entitled to a dedicated workspace and special desk-sharing rules.
- Control mechanisms: How is booking data analyzed? Is it analyzed only at the team level, or also at the individual level? The latter typically requires employee participation and raises data protection concerns.
What is the best way to involve the works council in desk sharing?
Time and again, managers make the mistake of informing the works council about the introduction of desk sharing only after the decision has already been made. This is unwise and, in many cases, violates Section 90 of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG).

As soon as the idea of introducing desk sharing arises internally, the obligation to provide information takes effect. The works council receives planning documents, space allocation plans, and schedules. In the next step, the concept is jointly reviewed for provisions subject to co-determination: Which areas are covered by Section 87(1)(1), (6), or (7) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG)? This review prevents individual provisions from becoming stumbling blocks later on.
Once the areas subject to co-determination have been identified, formal negotiations on a works agreement begin. If the employer and the works council cannot reach an agreement, the conciliation board makes the decision. This process can delay projects by months. Once the agreement is finalized, implementation begins. An evaluation clause also specifies when and how the parties will jointly review the plan and adjust it as needed.
If you communicate transparently from the outset and establish a clear policy, you will have already prevented most conflicts before they arise. The same principle applies to the booking system.
{{hint-box}}





























