Section 26(1) sentence 1 describes when employees' data may be processed for employment purposes: where necessary to decide on hiring, to perform or end the employment relationship after hiring, or to exercise or meet the rights and duties of employee representation arising from statute or from collective agreements, works agreements or service agreements. The sentence does not by itself supply the legal basis: in C-34/21 (30 March 2023) the Court of Justice held that a Hesse provision worded like this sentence is not a more specific rule under GDPR Art. 88(1) where it does not meet Art. 88(2), and must then be disapplied unless it is a rule under Art. 6(3). The controller therefore identifies for every employment purpose a basis in GDPR Art. 6(1) (contract under (b), legal obligation under (c), legitimate interests under (f)) or a works agreement meeting Art. 88(2), and applies the necessity test the sentence states: no more data and no more intrusive processing than the purpose requires.
This control maps to 2 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.