AI, work pressure and conduct: Why a code of conduct matters more than ever

Under the Dutch Working Conditions Act, employers are required to implement policies aimed at preventing or reducing psychosocial workload, which includes work pressure, stress, burnout, bullying and harassment. Employers are not legally required to introduce a code of conduct to prevent psychosocial workload, but they are required to ensure that psychosocial workload policies are embedded within the organisation. In our view, a code of conduct is an excellent tool for putting that obligation into practice.

Practice and case law show that companies benefit from having a code of conduct. It makes clear what is and is not acceptable within the organisation, how employees can hold each other accountable, what support is available and how conduct that violates the code will be addressed. This protects both complainants and the individuals against whom complaints are made.

A code of conduct may include provisions regarding workplace behavior, confidential information, digital communication and the use of AI at work. Precisely because AI not only takes work off employees’ hands but also raises the bar – faster, more, and error-free – it creates a new source of work pressure that deserves attention within psychosocial workload policies.

The fact that the use of AI at work can lead to friction is illustrated by a recent decision of the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court of 27 February 2026. A sick employee used ChatGPT on his work laptop to assess his legal position and explore the amount of severance compensation he might be entitled to. He asked ChatGPT how much he could claim and how he should negotiate. The employer summarily dismissed the employee, partly because he had used the laptop for private purposes and had entered information about the employment relationship into ChatGPT. However, the summary dismissal did not stand. The court held that the AI use was only blameworthy to a limited extent: there was no evidence that trade secrets had been shared and private use of the work laptop was not prohibited. There was no policy whatsoever governing the use of AI.

In another case, an employee had used AI in carrying out her work. This dissatisfied the employer and, according to the employer, its clients as well. The employer withheld part of the employee’s salary on the basis that damage had allegedly been caused by the use of AI. The district court disagreed. There was no policy in place regarding the use of AI at work, and the employer could not demonstrate that any damage had been caused by the employee’s conduct, let alone that there had been reckless behavior resulting in such damage.

To avoid increasing the regulatory burden on companies, the proposed statutory obligation to introduce a code of conduct has been abandoned. That is a missed opportunity, as companies benefit from a code of conduct, and a mandatory requirement would encourage its adoption. Among other things, a code of conduct strengthens the legal position of employers. Case law shows that district courts assess whether employees were aware of what was and was not permitted, for example based on a code of conduct.

Simply adopting rules is not enough. A code of conduct only works if employees know the rules and recognise them in practice. Employers should therefore discuss the code regularly during onboarding programmes and team meetings. AI literacy also deserves attention: since February 2025, the EU AI-Act determines that organisations must  ensure that employees have sufficient knowledge to use AI responsibly. A lack of knowledge leads to increased stress, mistakes and conflicts. Co-determination rights should not be overlooked either: the works council has rights of consent with respect to arrangements concerning working conditions. Early involvement of the works council increases support and prevents disputes at a later stage. Such early involvement aligns with the recent recommendation of the SER Committee for the Promotion of Employee Co-determination to modernise the Dutch Works Councils Act and to involve works councils earlier and more strategically in developments such as the use of AI within organisations.

AI, work pressure and conduct converge in the workplace. Psychosocial workload policies are mandatory, AI literacy is mandatory, but the connection between the two is often missing. Codes of conduct tend to focus on undesirable behavior, while AI policies are developed separately and are often technical in nature. That is precisely where the risk lies. The judgments discussed above demonstrate that the first question is whether a policy existed, followed by whether the policy was sufficiently communicated and properly applied. Without clear frameworks, everyone in the workplace is in a weaker position.