One for all and all for one? Individual works council members’ entitlement to material resources

In a recent decision (decision of April 25, 2025 – 17 TaBV 62/24), the Lower Saxony Regional Labor Court (hereinafter “LAG”) dealt with such a question, namely whether only the works council as a body or also the individual works council members can assert a claim to the provision of material resources for themselves.

What was the case about?

The employer provided the works council as a body with an email address under a domain operated by said employer. As applicants in labor court proceedings individual works council members then applied for personalized email addresses under the employer’s domain, which would enable them to communicate confidentially and directly with both employees and external parties. The employer refused, pointing out that no corresponding resolution had been passed by the works council as a body. Furthermore, the employer argued that only the works council as a body, not the individual works council members, was entitled to material resources under Section 40 (2) of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG). The Celle Labor Court ruled in favor of the employer. The LAG took a different view.

What was the LAG’s decision?

The LAG first stated that the individual works council members were entitled to file a claim because they were asserting their own rights in their own name and were therefore affected in their position under works constitution law. The works council as a body, on the other hand, was not to be involved in the proceedings.

The claim under Section 40 (2) BetrVG to be provided with material resources was, in the present case, available to the applicants and not only to the works council as a body. The wording of the law did not specify a particular claimant, but merely referred to costs arising from the activities of the works council. However, the works council acts through its members. Even on the basis of a systematic and teleological interpretation of the law, it cannot be concluded that the body alone is the claimant.

Moreover, no resolution of the works council is required to assert such claims. A works council member may demand the necessary material resources in its own right pursuant to Section 40 (2) BetrVG.

The desired email addresses constitute information and communication technology within the meaning of Section 40 (2) BetrVG, which in the present case is also necessary for works council’s duties. The request is not disproportionate, particularly when taking into account the mutual interests. The individual works council members could not be referred to the fact that employees can contact the works council via the general works council address. The workforce must have the option of contacting individual works council members confidentially.

Practical implications

The decision of the LAG is highly questionable in its dogmatic reasoning. In our opinion, it would have been correct to rule, as the Celle Labor Court did in the first instance, that only the works council as a body is entitled to information and communication technology pursuant to Section 40 (2) BetrVG and that a works council resolution is required to assert such a claim.

However, this changes little in practice: if one imagines a corresponding resolution that could easily be adopted by the works council, there will generally be little doubt as to the necessity of personalized email addresses. After all, the works council has a wide margin of discretion in this regard. The LAG explains in a comprehensible manner that digital communication – even with employees who do not have work email addresses themselves – is part of the standard duties of a works council member. Works councils must be able to send attachments, forward information, and respond quickly to queries. A functioning email infrastructure should therefore be part of the basic equipment of a works council. This includes personalized email addresses for individual works council members. After all, the law also acknowledges the possibility that certain works council members may enjoy a particular level of trust in specific areas (e.g., participation in company integration management procedures), so that the request for personalized email addresses also appears plausible from a confidentiality perspective.

Image created with Adobe Firefly