We recently recorded a lively discussion with several of our Baker McKenzie colleagues to discuss the major developments impacting multinational employers operating in Europe. For your convenience, click here for a link to the recording.
To preview some of the key changes our team highlighted, read on!
The socio-political climate across Europe is contributing to
The European Commission has issued its first fine in a no-poach case in the labor market, and its first sanction of the anti-competitive use of a minority share in a competing business. With the fine of EUR 329 million, the Commission joins the ranks of a number of high-profile antitrust enforcers worldwide that have targeted
As AI adoption accelerates across workplaces, labor organizations around the world are beginning to take notice—and action. The current regulatory focus in the US centers on state-specific laws like those in California, Illinois, Colorado and New York City, but the labor implications of AI are quickly becoming a front-line issue for unions, potentially signaling a new wave of collective bargaining considerations. Similarly, in Europe the deployment of certain AI tools within the organization may trigger information, consultation, and—in some European countries—negotiation obligations. AI tools may only be introduced once the process is completed.
This marks an important inflection point for employers: engaging with employee representatives on AI strategy early can help anticipate employee concerns and reduce friction as new technologies are adopted. Here, we explore how AI is emerging as a key topic in labor relations in the US and Europe and offer practical guidance for employers navigating the evolving intersection of AI, employment law, and collective engagement.
There is no specific US federal law regulating AI in the workplace. An emerging patchwork of state and local legislation (e.g. in Colorado, Illinois and New York City) address the potential for bias and discrimination in AI-based tools—but do not focus on preventing displacement of employees. In March, New York became the first state to require businesses to disclose AI-related mass layoffs, indicating a growing expectation that employers are transparent about AI’s impact on workers.[1]
Some unions have begun negotiating their own safeguards to address growing concerns about the impact that AI may have on union jobs. For example, in 2023, the Las Vegas Culinary Workers negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with major casinos requiring that the union be provided advance notice, and the opportunity to bargain over, AI implementation. The CBA also provides workers displaced by AI with severance pay, continued benefits, and recall rights.
Similarly, in 2023 both the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) negotiated agreements with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) that include safeguards against AI reducing or replacing writers and actors. WGA’s contract requires studios to meet semi-annually with the union to discuss current and future uses of generative AI—giving writers a formal channel to influence how AI is deployed in their industry. The SAG-AFTRA contract requires consent and compensation for use of digital replicas powered by AI.Continue Reading Navigating Labor’s Response to AI: Proactive Strategies for Multinational Employers Across the Atlantic
The implementation of EU Pay Transparency Directive will come into effect in 2026, requiring companies to identify “equal” or “equivalent” positions and ensure they are compensated equally, regardless of gender. This assessment can be particularly challenging for companies with a large workforce in different jurisdictions.
To support in this effort we have developed a specialized
On 2 February 2025 the first deadlines under the EU AI Act took effect. This included the AI literacy provisions, responsibility for which will likely be with HR teams and the ban on prohibited AI systems. What do these and other upcoming changes under the Act mean for in-scope employers?
In this webinar, our multijurisdictional
[UPDATE RE THE OMNIUS PROPOSAL HERE]
The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive is a regulation requiring covered companies to disclose information on what they see as the risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues, and on the impact of their activities on people and the environment.
The CSRD impacts not
If your last name starts with A-G, you are probably well aware that your (recently extended) MCLE compliance deadline is on March 30, 2025. In addition to the general credit requirement, the state of California requires all attorneys to complete:
Continue Reading California’s CLE Compliance Deadline Is Approaching – We can help!
The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive represents one of the biggest ever shifts in reporting requirements for organizations. (For most companies, the first reporting will be on the financial year which starts after January 1, 2025.)
It requires most large organizations to comply with mandatory, detailed sustainability reporting standards, including extensive employment related disclosures. We are already advising a number of organizations in their sustainability journey and employment-related implications of the CSRD and, if it is not something you are already looking it, it will likely be on your radar very soon.
The employment-related implications of the CSRD mean that organizations will have to provide detailed descriptions of workforce policies; provide information on how the company engages with workers and workers representatives; and provide specific metric and target data relating to diversity, wages, compensation, health and safety and incidents and complaints (e.g., harassment and discrimination complaints), amongst others. There are also further disclosures required relating to workers in the supply chain. What is clear is that reporting will cover some potentially very sensitive topics, requiring sufficient preparation and careful consideration.Continue Reading The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive | Employment Law Implications
We are clearly (and thankfully) well past the pandemic, and yet demands for flexible and remote work press on. While the overall global trend of transforming the traditional 9-to-5 work model is consistent, laws governing flexible work arrangements can vary significantly by jurisdiction.
We monitor this space closely (see our previous update here) and advise multinational companies on a multitude of issues bearing on remote, hybrid and flexible arrangements, including health & safety rules, working time regulations, tax and employment benefit issues, cybersecurity and data privacy protections, workforce productivity monitoring and more.
Key recent updates around the globe (organized by region) include:
By and large, HR departments are proving to be ground zero for enterprise adoption of artificial intelligence technologies. AI can be used to collect and analyze applicant data, productivity, performance, engagement, and risk to company resources. However, with the recent explosion of attention on AI and the avalanche of new AI technologies, the use of AI is garnering more attention and scrutiny from regulators, and in some cases, employees. At the same time, organizations are anxious to adopt more AI internally to capitalize on productivity and efficiency gains, and often in-house attorneys are under pressure from internal clients to quickly review and sign off on new tools, and new functionalities within existing tools.
This is especially challenging given the onslaught of new regulations, the patchwork of existing data protection and discrimination laws, and heightened regulatory enforcement. For example, there has been a considerable uptick in European data protection authorities investigating how organizations are deploying workforce AI tools in the monitoring space, including time and activity trackers, video surveillance, network and email monitoring, and GPS tracking. Authorities have issued substantial fines for alleged privacy law violations, including for “unlawfully excessive” or “disproportionate” collection. For example, the French data protection authorities recently imposed a USD $34 million fine related to a multinational e-commerce company’s use of a workplace surveillance system.
The AI regulatory landscape is rapidly evolving, and in most places compliance is still voluntary. However, organizations should build their AI governance programs to include key privacy, data protection, intellectual property, anti-discrimination and other concepts – and a good place to start is with these HR tools given their widespread use and the increased scrutiny. Legal Departments should consider these five key actions:Continue Reading The Legal Playbook for AI in HR: Five Practical Steps to Help Mitigate Your Risk
