The works council co-determines introducing and using technical equipment intended to monitor employees' conduct or performance. According to settled Federal Labour Court case law since 1975, it is enough that a device is objectively suitable for such monitoring; the employer's intention is irrelevant. This covers CCTV, GPS and vehicle telematics, access and time recording systems, telephone and call recording systems, email and web filtering and logging, endpoint and screenshot or keystroke tools, productivity and scoring software, biometric terminals, HR and collaboration software that records usage, and AI tools that evaluate behaviour or performance. The employer may neither introduce nor change nor extend the use of such a device before agreement (normally a works agreement specifying purposes, data, evaluations, access, retention and prohibited uses) or a conciliation committee award; the council can obtain an injunction against unilateral introduction. Where a system is used company-wide the central works council is competent (s 50(1)); where a statute already compels the measure (such as recording working time under the Occupational Safety and Health Act) co-determination covers only the how, not the whether.
This control maps to 1 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 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.