Can algorithmic recruitment systems lawfully utilise automated decision-making in the EU?

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW
Henni Parviainen
{"title":"Can algorithmic recruitment systems lawfully utilise automated decision-making in the EU?","authors":"Henni Parviainen","doi":"10.1177/20319525221093815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Algorithmic recruitment systems are emerging in the EU job market. Such systems could technically rely on AI and automated decision-making, but it is unclear whether it is lawful. In addition to other rules, the ambiguously worded GDPR Article 22 regulates automated decision-making. It remains unresolved whether the main rule in GDPR Article 22(1) grants applicants a right not to be subject to automated decisions or prohibits employers from making automated decisions. Further, it appears undetermined as to what counts as automated decision-making under GDPR Article 22(1) and whether the GDPR Article 22(2) exceptions to the main rule apply in a recruitment context. This article examines the legal boundaries set by GDPR Article 22(1) and (2) on the use of automated decision-making in algorithmic recruitment systems. The aim is to clarify whether employers in the EU are allowed to use algorithmic recruitment systems with automated decision-making capabilities. The examination indicates that, even if deemed a prohibition, GDPR Article 22 does not completely disallow such systems. Instead, the analysis suggests that automated decision-making could be allowed for recruitment under the contractual necessity exception of Article 22(2)(a), for instance, in a case where it would be impossible to go through the abundance of applications by hand in a reasonable time and manner. However, the explicit consent exception of Article 22(2)(c) would only apply in an extremely limited number of recruitment cases, if ever. Consequently, it seems that regardless of the rather strict legal boundaries, algorithmic recruitment systems could utilise automated decision-making in certain limited cases and after diligent assessments. Automated decision-making could be worthwhile, for example, in mass scale recruitment processes which could not reasonably be handled without automation.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"225 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221093815","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Algorithmic recruitment systems are emerging in the EU job market. Such systems could technically rely on AI and automated decision-making, but it is unclear whether it is lawful. In addition to other rules, the ambiguously worded GDPR Article 22 regulates automated decision-making. It remains unresolved whether the main rule in GDPR Article 22(1) grants applicants a right not to be subject to automated decisions or prohibits employers from making automated decisions. Further, it appears undetermined as to what counts as automated decision-making under GDPR Article 22(1) and whether the GDPR Article 22(2) exceptions to the main rule apply in a recruitment context. This article examines the legal boundaries set by GDPR Article 22(1) and (2) on the use of automated decision-making in algorithmic recruitment systems. The aim is to clarify whether employers in the EU are allowed to use algorithmic recruitment systems with automated decision-making capabilities. The examination indicates that, even if deemed a prohibition, GDPR Article 22 does not completely disallow such systems. Instead, the analysis suggests that automated decision-making could be allowed for recruitment under the contractual necessity exception of Article 22(2)(a), for instance, in a case where it would be impossible to go through the abundance of applications by hand in a reasonable time and manner. However, the explicit consent exception of Article 22(2)(c) would only apply in an extremely limited number of recruitment cases, if ever. Consequently, it seems that regardless of the rather strict legal boundaries, algorithmic recruitment systems could utilise automated decision-making in certain limited cases and after diligent assessments. Automated decision-making could be worthwhile, for example, in mass scale recruitment processes which could not reasonably be handled without automation.
在欧盟,算法招聘系统能否合法地利用自动决策?
算法招聘系统正在欧盟就业市场上兴起。这些系统在技术上可以依赖人工智能和自动化决策,但尚不清楚这是否合法。除其他规则外,措辞含糊的《通用数据保护条例》第22条对自动化决策进行了规范。《通用数据保护条例》第22条第(1)款的主要规则是授予申请人不受自动决策约束的权利,还是禁止雇主做出自动决策,目前尚未解决。此外,根据《通用数据保护条例》第22条第(1)款,什么是自动决策,以及《通用数据管理条例》第二十二条第(2)款对主要规则的例外情况是否适用于招聘环境,似乎尚未确定。本文探讨了《通用数据保护条例》第22条第(1)款和第(2)款关于在算法招聘系统中使用自动决策的法律界限。其目的是澄清欧盟雇主是否被允许使用具有自动决策能力的算法招聘系统。审查表明,即使被视为禁止,《通用数据保护条例》第22条也没有完全禁止此类制度。相反,分析表明,根据第22条第(2)款(a)项的合同必要性例外情况,例如在不可能以合理的时间和方式手工处理大量申请的情况下,招聘可以允许自动决策。然而,第22条第(2)款(c)项的明确同意例外情况只适用于数量极为有限的招聘案件(如果有的话)。因此,似乎无论有多么严格的法律界限,算法招聘系统都可以在某些有限的情况下,经过认真的评估,利用自动化决策。例如,在大规模招聘过程中,如果没有自动化,就无法合理处理自动化决策,这可能是值得的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信