(Federal Labor Court, decision of January 28, 2026 – 7 ABR 23/24; 7 ABR 26/24 and 7 ABR 40/24)
The urban landscape is increasingly dominated by courier drivers working for so-called platform-based delivery services. These are digital intermediary platforms that connect customers, restaurants/retailers, and courier drivers via an app or website; some of these intermediary platforms also employ couriers.
From a work organization perspective, the companies that operate these platforms are geographically organized as so-called remote and hub cities. While employees in remote cities live and work without a fixed company structure, hub cities are centrally located, strategically selected locations (“hubs”) with larger offices or coworking spaces where employees can meet regularly or even be permanently present.
In the case of an employer in the field of platform-based services for ordering food and beverages, the Federal Labor Court has now ruled that remote cities are not eligible for works council representation because they do not meet the requirements of a business or independent part of a business pursuant to Section 1 of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG).
The Federal Labor Court’s decision was preceded by the election of works councils in several remote cities, including Braunschweig, Kiel, and Bremen, in 2022 and 2023. The elections were contested by the employer, who argued that the concept of a business had been misinterpreted in these cases. The respective regional labor courts had already declared the elections invalid, as they did not qualify the Remote Cities as businesses or independent parts of a business within the meaning of the BetrVG.
The decisions have now been confirmed by the Federal Labor Court. In doing so, the Federal Labor Court once again clarified that an establishment within the meaning of the Works Constitution Act requires an organizational unit that is controlled by a uniform management in essential personnel and social matters. For independent parts of an establishment, a lower degree of independence is sufficient, but this must actually exist. Even if the work is essentially organized digitally via an app, as is the case with Remote Cities, the classic criteria for the definition of an establishment continue to apply. In the court’s view, the mere grouping of delivery drivers into a delivery area with its own duty roster is not sufficient to establish an organizational unit eligible for a works council. In the court’s view, the decisive factor is that Remote Cities has neither its own administrative structures nor local management. Control is exercised centrally from so-called hub cities. This means that the necessary organizational independence is lacking.
Practical tip:
The decision makes it clear that the existing definition of a business is not being watered down, even in digital and platform-based working models. To set up a works council, it’s still necessary to have an organizationally independent unit with its own management. Companies that digitize or decentralize their work organization can’t just get around the requirements for workplace co-determination. Conversely, employee representatives cannot establish a works council solely on the basis of common interests or digital collaboration. In practice, this means that examining the concept of a “business” and the organizational structures within a company remains a key prerequisite for workplace co-determination.
Bettina-Axenia Bugus-Fahrenhorst
Contact:
Bettina Bugus-Fahrenhorst