AI in evaluation, promotion and dismissal: high-risk beyond hiring
Annex III of the AI Act goes beyond recruitment: AI that helps decide on working conditions, promotion, termination, task allocation and performance evaluation is high-risk too. That catches performance tools and workforce systems many employers already use.
Short answer: Recruitment gets the most attention, but Annex III of the AI Act goes further. AI that helps decide on working conditions, promotion, termination, task allocation and performance evaluation is high-risk too. That brings performance dashboards, productivity scores and workforce-management systems many employers already run under the same heavy regime โ with the GDPR on top.
What falls under Annex III
The regulation explicitly names AI systems used to make or influence decisions on:
- working conditions, promotion and termination of an employment relationship;
- the allocation of tasks based on behaviour or personal traits;
- monitoring and evaluating the performance and behaviour of workers.
It does not matter whether the system decides itself or "merely" makes a recommendation a manager adopts: decision support is caught too.
The employer's duties
As deployer (Art. 26) the same core duties apply as in recruitment:
- Human oversight (Art. 14): a human assesses and can set aside the outcome โ no algorithm may demote or dismiss anyone unchecked.
- Inform the affected workers (and where applicable their representatives) that a high-risk system is used.
- Relevant, representative input data and monitoring for skewed outcomes.
- Certain employers must first carry out a fundamental-rights assessment (FRIA).
The GDPR: Article 22 for heavy decisions
Dismissal, a refused promotion or a sanction are decisions with significant effects. Where such a decision comes solely from an automated process, Article 22 GDPR applies: a valid basis, transparency and a right to human intervention. In practice this means an AI judgement may never be the last word.
The trap: monitoring that quietly decides
Many monitoring tools not only collect data but turn it into scores that drive promotions and reviews. At that point "measuring" shifts to "deciding" โ and thus into high-risk. The line is not the technology but the use.
What to do
- Inventory your performance, planning and workforce systems, not just your recruitment tools.
- Determine per system whether it makes or influences decisions about people.
- Secure a human final judgement for every consequence to an individual.
- Document the logic and keep logs โ you need them in a complaint or supervisory request.
The AI Act protects the whole employment relationship, not just the front door. Getting only recruitment right covers half the risk.
Sources
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act): Annex III covers decisions on working conditions, promotion, termination, task allocation and performance evaluation. - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR): Art. 22 for decisions with significant effects, such as dismissal or demotion.
Read next
Algorithmic management: AI that allocates and steers work, beyond platform work
Algorithmic management โ AI that allocates tasks, steers performance and nudges behaviour โ is not limited to delivery platforms. In ordinary organisations it falls under Annex III (task allocation, evaluation) and the GDPR, with human oversight and transparency at its core.
AI in onboarding and internal mobility: where is the line?
Talent marketplaces, skills matching and career paths with AI seem neutral, but they reach the high-risk line as soon as they steer promotion or progression decisions (Annex III, point 4). Then the AI Act, GDPR, transparency and equal opportunity apply internally too.
AI in scheduling, planning and payroll: task allocation is high-risk
AI that assigns shifts, plans capacity or calculates pay falls under Annex III once it allocates tasks based on behaviour or traits. Beyond the AI Act, working-time rules, schedule predictability and the GDPR apply โ plus the risk that dynamic scheduling disadvantages certain groups.