CSE consultation and AI transformation: the right time and scope

Three interim orders issued between February 2025 and January 2026 give companies a practical rule of method: assess the employer’s decision, the system’s actual use and its effects on work, then complete any applicable consultation before implementation.

• AI is not an automatic trigger detached from the Code du travail: Article L.2312-8 covers, among other matters, the introduction of new technologies and major changes affecting health, safety or working conditions [1].
• A ‘pilot’ that already involves employees may amount to initial implementation, while a software replacement may be substantial enough to require a fresh consultation [5][7].
• The assessment depends on the company perimeter, the system’s functions, the employees concerned and the expected effects; it cannot be inferred from the supplier’s name or the presence of ‘AI’ in a product description.
• The AI Act adds a separate European framework based on the system category and the operator’s role, without replacing French social-dialogue duties [8][9].

What the three orders establish — and what they do not

Read together, the three decisions show several ways in which CSE prerogatives can be infringed, but their reach must remain tied to the facts and legal basis considered by each judge.

• TJ Nanterre, 14 February 2025, no. 24/01457: consultation had eventually begun; the judge principally sanctioned the early implementation of five tools because the purported pilot already involved use by the employees concerned before the CSE had delivered its opinion [5].
• TJ Créteil, 15 July 2025, no. 25/00851: a publishing group had started deploying tools capable of improving, transcribing, summarising or drafting content without prior consultation; the judge found a new technology liable to affect employees’ working conditions [6].
• TJ Nanterre, 29 January 2026, no. 25/02856: two skills-management packages extended use to all employees and played a part in reviews, assignments and training; replacing a pre-existing tool was therefore not a mere technical evolution with no distinct effects [7].
• Limit of the analysis: these are interim orders concerning specific projects, not a rule that every purchase, isolated test or AI component automatically requires the same procedure and attracts the same sanction.

The measures ordered make the scheduling risk concrete while confirming that the judge tailors the injunction and penalty to the dispute at hand.

• In Nanterre in February 2025, deployment was suspended until consultation ended, subject to a €1,000 penalty per proven breach for 90 days, with €5,000 awarded to the CSE on an interim basis [5].
• In Créteil in July 2025, use of the tools was suspended until consultation ended, subject to a €1,000 daily penalty for three months, with €5,000 in interim damages [6].
• In Nanterre in January 2026, deployment of the two HR packages was suspended, subject to a €500 penalty for each day of delay [7].

The French framework: threshold, subject, information and timing

In undertakings where the CSE exercises the powers under the section applicable from 50 employees, the legal analysis begins with Article L.2312-8 rather than a general presumption specific to AI [1].

• Subject: the CSE is informed and consulted on matters concerning the organisation, management and general operation of the undertaking, including employment and working conditions, the introduction of new technologies and major changes affecting health, safety or working conditions.
• Timing: Article L.2312-14 provides that consultation precedes the employer’s decision, subject to its stated exceptions; information provided after implementation has begun therefore does not serve the same function [2].
• Quality of information: the CSE must have precise written information and sufficient examination time; the Conseil d’État links the start of the time limit to receipt of information that genuinely enables the committee to assess the project’s scope [3].
• Perimeter: a CSE is established from 11 employees subject to the duration condition in Article L.2311-2, but the economic and consultative powers examined here fall under the section for undertakings with at least 50 employees [1].

Expert support should be anticipated as an available statutory route rather than described as an automatic consequence of every AI project.

• Article L.2315-94 allows the CSE to appoint an accredited expert when new technologies are introduced or a major project changes health, safety or working conditions [4].
• Under the ordinary funding rule for the relevant one-off consultations, the employer bears 80% and the CSE’s operating budget 20%, subject to the exceptions in Article L.2315-80 [4].
• In the absence of an agreement, Article R.2312-6 allows one month for the opinion, two months where an expert is involved, and three months where consultation with expert work takes place at both central CSE and establishment CSE levels [4].

Replacement, pilot or embedded AI: examine the actual effects

A sound review avoids simplistic categories by describing what the system does, who uses it, which data it draws on and how it changes decisions or tasks.

• Replacement tool: compare the old and new perimeter, added functions, exposed people, processed data and the place of algorithmic recommendations in decisions.
• Pilot phase: distinguish technical preparation without operational use from initial real-world use by employees, even where the population or period is limited.
• Purchased service: assess the effect of deploying it within the undertaking; the fact that it is standard software or SaaS does not neutralise its consequences for work.
• Product sold to customers: do not assume that it always falls outside CSE scrutiny; its commercial content is insufficient by itself, while developing or operating it may also reorganise employees’ work.

Prepare useful consultation from the scoping stage

The schedule is more robust when the company classifies the project and prepares useful information before making an operational commitment that would be difficult to suspend.

• Map the decision: identify the employing entity, decision-maker, affected establishments, exposed employees, deployment owner and each operator’s role in the system’s value chain.
• Describe work before and after: document tasks, autonomy, controls, assessment criteria, workload, skills, training, health and safety, then isolate the changes attributable to the project.
• Secure the sequence: determine with the appropriate adviser whether consultation is required, provide sufficiently precise information and reserve the corresponding time before an operational pilot or deployment.
• Organise verification: share indicators, human-oversight arrangements, incidents, escalation routes and stopping conditions so that monitoring continues after the initial opinion.

A comprehensive internal inventory of AI uses is sound governance infrastructure and a useful source for the CSE file, provided it is not presented as a universal register that the AI Act already requires every company to maintain.

• Governance inventory: it may cover every system and use, including purpose, internal owner, affected populations, data, suppliers, risks and validation status.
• AI Act: duties vary according to whether the operator is a provider, deployer, importer or distributor and according to the system category; registration in the EU database concerns defined cases, including certain providers and certain public deployers of high-risk systems [8].
• Workplace: Article 26 requires an employer deploying a high-risk system to inform workers’ representatives and affected workers before putting it into service or use, in accordance with applicable rules; this European duty does not narrow any consultation required under French law [8].
• Timeline at 6 September 2026: Sections 1 to 3 of Chapter III apply to Annex III high-risk systems from 2 December 2027 and Annex I high-risk systems from 2 August 2028, subject to the applicable transitional provisions [9].

From a one-off project to continuous social dialogue

Consultation addresses a particular decision, while an agreement or monitoring body can govern principles of use, changes to occupations and information-sharing over time without removing the CSE’s statutory prerogatives.

• CEET counted 242 company agreements mentioning AI, concluded between 2017 and 2024 by 160 organisations, documenting an emerging subject for negotiation without establishing a majority practice [10].
• MAIF announced an agreement signed on 7 May 2026 by all six representative trade unions, with a twelve-member AI committee attached to the CSE and meeting three times a year [11].
• Such a framework can define monitored topics, shared information, review frequency and escalation routes, but it does not remove the need to assess the one-off consultation required for each new decision.

Give CSE members the means to assess the system

The quality of social dialogue depends less on abstract AI knowledge than on equal access to the project facts, supplemented where appropriate by an AI-literacy method or accredited expert support.

• Common information file: purpose, users, affected processes, data, outputs, oversight, success criteria, risks, incidents, training and expected changes to work.
• DialIA: coordinated by IRES with trade-union and employer organisations, this project offers a shared method for technology-focused social dialogue [12].
• Expert support: where Article L.2315-94 applies, an accredited expert gives the CSE an independent analysis of the project’s effects on health, safety and working conditions [4].

Applying Junyr governance to social dialogue

The Junyr Method™ incorporates social dialogue into project governance by connecting responsibilities, effects on work and evidence of control, without claiming that a proprietary method alone determines legal compliance.

• Plan: classify the system, operators, use cases, social perimeter and decision timetable.
• Execute: train users, keep the pilot within the authorised scope, record decisions and apply the agreed oversight measures.
• Verify: monitor actual effects, incidents and gaps between intended and observed use, then reassess the need for information, consultation or negotiation when significant changes occur.

Position your project before deployment

The free Junyr audit helps an SME or mid-cap company leader understand their maturity and choose a sensible first project before committing to a transformation timetable.

• Free, no-obligation 30-minute video call.
• Position on the scale, main blocker and first suitable project.
• One-page follow-up after the call.
• Book the Junyr audit.

Paul-Antoine TUAL · AI Transformation Leader · Croissance et Transitions (SAS) · Junyr Method™

Sources

1. French Code du travail, Article L.2312-8 and Article L.2311-2.
2. French Code du travail, Article L.2312-14.
3. Conseil d’État, 15 July 2020, no. 418543, decision and analysis on information enabling the CSE to exercise its powers effectively.
4. French Code du travail, Article L.2315-94, Article L.2315-80 and Article R.2312-6.
5. Tribunal judiciaire de Nanterre, interim order of 14 February 2025, no. 24/01457, full decision reproduced by Doctrine.
6. Tribunal judiciaire de Créteil, interim order of 15 July 2025, no. 25/00851, full decision reproduced by Doctrine.
7. Tribunal judiciaire de Nanterre, interim order of 29 January 2026, no. 25/02856, copy of the decision.
8. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, including Articles 3, 26, 49 and 71, EUR-Lex text.
9. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, including the amendment to Article 113, EUR-Lex text.
10. CEET, October 2024, ‘L’IA dans les entreprises : que révèlent les accords négociés ?’.
11. MAIF, 11 May 2026, ‘MAIF adopte un accord d’entreprise pour un développement de l’IA éthique et durable’.
12. IRES, ‘Dialoguer sur l’IA – Dial-IA’.