Desk Sharing & Employee Representation What Employers Need to Consider Across Different Countries

You want to introduce desk sharing – but how does employee representation fit into the picture? Across different countries, workplace changes such as desk sharing are subject to very different legal frameworks, consultation requirements and employee rights.

This article takes a global perspective and looks at how desk sharing is regulated internationally. It explains in which situations employee consultation may be required, how much influence employee representatives typically have on workplace changes and whether they can delay or prevent the introduction of desk sharing. In addition, it highlights what employers should keep in mind to implement desk sharing in a compliant, transparent and widely accepted way across different countries.

Why is desk sharing relevant for employee representation?

Desk sharing changes the daily working environment. Fixed desks are replaced by flexible workstations, and employees often rely on digital tools to book desks or manage office presence. These changes raise practical and legal questions that employee representatives are expected to address.

From their perspective, desk sharing typically touches on fairness, transparency and working conditions. Employees may wonder how desks are allocated, whether everyone has equal access to suitable workspaces and how personal or sensitive data is handled. Ergonomics and health considerations also play an important role, especially when workstations are shared by multiple people.

Beyond these aspects, employee representatives often act as a mediator during change processes. Early involvement can help reduce uncertainty, address concerns and increase acceptance of desk sharing initiatives.

Is desk sharing subject to consultation or co-determination?

Whether desk sharing requires consultation or co-determination depends on national labor law and on how the concept is implemented in practice. While desk sharing is often considered a management decision, specific rules can trigger employee representation rights in many countries.

In Germany, desk sharing may fall under statutory co-determination if it affects workplace order or involves technical systems. In practice, this is often assessed under
§ 87 (1) no. 1 BetrVG, which covers rules on workplace organization and employee conduct, and § 87 (1) no. 6 BetrVG, which applies when technical systems are introduced that may monitor employee behavior. Desk booking tools or binding desk usage rules can therefore require works council involvement, depending on their design.

A similar but slightly narrower approach applies in Austria. Here, employee representatives may need to be involved under § 96 ArbVG if desk sharing relies on technical systems capable of monitoring employees, or under § 97 ArbVG when binding workplace rules are introduced that affect daily work organization.

In the United Kingdom, desk sharing is generally treated as a management decision rather than a co-determination issue. However, employers may be required to inform and consult employee representatives under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 if desk sharing represents a substantial change to working conditions. Unlike in Germany or Austria, this does not grant veto rights, but it does create formal consultation obligations.

In countries such as the United States, there are typically no statutory co-determination requirements. Employers usually have broad discretion to introduce desk sharing, but must still comply with general obligations, such as health and safety requirements under OSHA and applicable data protection or privacy laws when digital booking systems are used.

Across all jurisdictions, the decisive factor is rarely the term “desk sharing” itself. What matters is whether the implementation introduces binding rules, affects employee behavior or relies on technical systems that process personal data. These elements are what most commonly trigger consultation or co-determination rights in practice.

Can employers introduce desk sharing unilaterally?

In many countries, employers have the general right to decide how office space is organized. This means that desk sharing can often be introduced without formal approval from employee representatives. However, this right is not unlimited and depends heavily on the practical impact of the measure.

Problems typically arise when desk sharing is not introduced as a flexible option, but as a binding rule that significantly changes how employees work. Mandatory desk sharing models, strict attendance requirements or centrally enforced booking rules are more likely to trigger consultation obligations than voluntary or hybrid approaches.

From a practical perspective, employers should be aware that unilateral decisions may be legally permissible but still risky. Even where no formal veto rights exist, ignoring employee representation can lead to delays, internal resistance or formal disputes that slow down implementation.

Can employee representatives prevent desk sharing?

In most jurisdictions, employee representatives cannot completely block the introduction of desk sharing. Strategic decisions about office concepts usually remain with management.

What employee representatives can do, however, is influence the conditions under which desk sharing is implemented. This often includes topics such as data usage, access rules, ergonomic standards or the handling of exceptions for certain roles or needs.

If employee representatives are not properly informed or consulted where required, they may be able to temporarily stop implementation until these obligations are fulfilled. In practice, this means that desk sharing is rarely stopped altogether, but frequently adjusted.

What information and consultation obligations apply?

Desk sharing is often classified as a workplace change that requires timely communication. In many countries, employers are expected to inform employee representatives before final decisions are made, not after implementation has already begun.

Consultation typically focuses on questions such as:

• how desk sharing affects daily work routines

• which rules apply to office attendance and desk allocation

• how digital tools are used and what data is processed

Early communication allows employee representatives to raise concerns and suggest improvements. From an employer’s perspective, this reduces legal uncertainty and increases acceptance among employees.

Is a formal desk sharing agreement required?

Whether desk sharing needs to be governed by a formal agreement depends on local labor law and on how employee representation is structured within the company. While some countries require binding agreements with employee representatives, others rely more heavily on internal policies or consultation-based arrangements.

In countries with strong co-determination systems, such as Germany or Austria, desk sharing is often regulated through a formal works agreement between employer and employee representatives. These agreements typically define how desk sharing is introduced, which rules apply to desk usage and how digital tools may be used. In practice, desk sharing is rarely rolled out without such an agreement if it affects workplace order or involves technical systems.

In the United Kingdom, the approach is different. Here, desk sharing is usually governed by a combination of internal workplace policies and, where applicable, consultation agreements with employee representatives. Rather than a binding co-determination agreement, employers often document desk sharing rules in policies that are shared with employees after a consultation process has taken place.

In countries like the United States, desk sharing is typically regulated through company policies or guidelines that form part of the employer’s internal ruleset. Formal collective agreements only play a role where unions are present. In most cases, the focus is on ensuring compliance with health and safety standards and applicable privacy laws, rather than on negotiating desk sharing rules with employee representatives.

Regardless of the country, effective desk sharing arrangements tend to cover similar practical questions. They usually clarify:

• how desks can be booked and used in daily operations

• which teams, roles or locations are included

• how exceptions are handled, for example for specific roles or accessibility needs

• which standards apply to ergonomics, cleanliness and shared equipment

Clear and well-documented rules help avoid misunderstandings, provide orientation for employees and reduce the risk of conflicts during and after implementation. In practice, companies that treat desk sharing as a documented workplace arrangement rather than an informal practice tend to see higher acceptance and fewer disputes.

How does data protection affect desk sharing?

Data protection plays a central role in desk sharing because most modern concepts rely on digital tools to manage desk bookings and office presence. These tools typically process personal data, such as employee names, booking times or location information.

Across many jurisdictions, employers are required to ensure that personal data is processed lawfully, transparently and for a clearly defined purpose. This applies regardless of whether desk sharing is mandatory or voluntary. In practice, issues often arise when desk booking systems make it possible to track attendance patterns or infer employee behavior, even if this is not the intended use.

In regions such as the European Union, data protection frameworks like the GDPR require employers to limit data collection to what is strictly necessary and to inform employees clearly about how their data is used. Similar principles apply in other regions through local privacy laws, even if the regulatory frameworks differ in scope.

From a practical perspective, companies introducing desk sharing should ensure that:

• data collection is limited to operational needs

• access to booking data is clearly defined

• no hidden performance or attendance monitoring takes place

• employees understand how and why their data is processed

Choosing desk sharing tools that follow privacy-by-design principles can significantly reduce legal risk and increase employee trust.

Conclusion

Desk sharing can be an effective way to support hybrid work and make better use of office space. However, its success depends on more than just the physical setup. Legal requirements, employee representation structures and data protection rules vary across countries and must be taken into account.

While desk sharing is often a management decision, its implementation can trigger consultation or co-determination obligations, particularly when binding rules or digital systems are involved. Companies that assess local requirements early, involve employee representatives where necessary and document desk sharing rules clearly are better positioned to implement desk sharing smoothly and compliantly.

When combined with transparent communication and privacy-conscious technology, desk sharing becomes not just a space-saving measure, but a sustainable workplace strategy.