Working Time Recording in Germany: What Businesses Need to Know Right Now
Many managing directors have been putting off the topic of working time recording for years. Sometimes the right system is missing, sometimes they’re waiting for the “final law” that will eventually clarify all the details. But anyone waiting is already risking real money — and in the worst case, fines of up to €30,000.
The legal situation is clearer than most people think. And the need to act has long since arrived.
What applies today — regardless of the new law
The Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruling of 13 September 2022 (Case No. 1 ABR 22/21) made it clear: the obligation to fully record working hours already exists — not at some point in the future, not after a new law is passed. Now.
The BAG ruled that the recording obligation follows directly from the Occupational Health and Safety Act (§ 3 ArbSchG) — and thus from EU law already in force in Germany. The Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is equally unambiguous: employers must not wait, but must document all working hours “already today”.
What does this mean in practice? Start, end, and duration of daily working hours must be recorded for every employee. Across all industries. Across all company sizes. Including remote work, field service, and trust-based working hours.
That last point surprises many: trust-based working hours do not exempt employers from the documentation obligation. Giving employees flexibility in how they organise their time does not remove the need to ensure that working hours are recorded and legal limits are respected.
What’s coming next — the direction is clear
A concrete new working time law with fixed deadlines does not yet exist. But the 2025 Coalition Agreement between CDU/CSU and SPD is unambiguous: electronic time recording is to become mandatory for all employers in Germany — unbureaucratic, but binding.
What the current draft legislation would mean in practice:
✓ Recording required by the end of each working day at the latest
✓ Delegation to employees permitted — via app, software, or digital system
✓ Micro-enterprises with fewer than 10 employees likely to be exempt
✓ Staggered transition periods planned for SMEs
The good news: anyone acting now is prepared for both scenarios — the current legal situation and the upcoming law.
The risks companies face right now
Many underestimate how real the consequences of missing time records already are:
Fines of up to €30,000 — Anyone who violates the documentation requirements for overtime and Sunday or public holiday work under § 16 ArbZG already faces significant penalties under current law.
Reversal of the burden of proof in overtime disputes — If an employee brings a legal claim for unpaid overtime, the employer bears the full burden of proof without time records of their own. That can be very costly.
Inspections by occupational health and safety authorities — Workplace inspections happen. Anyone who cannot present documentation receives formal orders — and faces the obligation to reconstruct records that can no longer be reliably reproduced.
How companies can act now — practically
The most common mistake: companies buy a time tracking system, roll it out — and find that no one uses it consistently. At that point, they have another tool, but no solution.
To avoid this, it is worth asking a few questions before introducing any system:
Where is work actually taking place? Anyone who needs to cover field service, remote work, and office in one system needs a tool that works on any device — without extra steps.
How much effort is acceptable? Time tracking should not be a project. If a team needs weeks of training on a new system, it’s the wrong system. Setup in minutes, not days — that should be the standard.
Who sees what? Not everyone in the organisation needs to see all time data. Team leads need different access than HR, and HR needs different access than management. Flexible role structures prevent data protection problems from the start.
Where does the data live? For German companies, this is not a minor point: servers in Germany mean GDPR compliance without additional effort — no data transfer to the US, no legal grey areas.
A tool that meets these requirements does not have to be an enterprise system. Solutions like Fritto were built precisely for this use case: clear, GDPR-compliant (servers in Germany), with flexible access roles and direct Jira integration for teams already working in tickets. Setup in two minutes — genuinely.
The most common misconceptions — cleared up
“We use trust-based working hours, so this doesn’t apply to us.”
Incorrect. Trust-based working hours mean that employees can organise their own time. It does not mean that no recording is required. Maximum working hour limits still apply — and they must be verifiable.
“We’re too small for obligations like this.”
Incorrect. The BAG ruling applies to all employers, regardless of company size. Even with two employees, the obligation exists. Some relief may be available for micro-enterprises under ten people under the upcoming law — but there is no exemption from the fundamental obligation.
“We’re waiting for the final law before we do anything.”
This is the riskiest position. The obligation already exists, and in the event of a regulatory inspection or an overtime dispute, “the law hadn’t come yet” does not count as a defence.
Conclusion
The question is no longer whether, but how. The obligation to record working hours exists today — and with the upcoming legislation on electronic recording, it will become even more concrete. Companies that act now gain not only legal certainty, but also peace of mind: no open liability risks, no surprises during inspections, no stress when the new law comes into force.
The good news: implementation does not have to be a major undertaking. Anyone who chooses a system that their team will actually use — simple, mobile, GDPR-compliant — has met the obligation in a matter of minutes. And can then get back to what really matters.
Note: All information on the pages of this website is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice in individual cases, nor can or should it replace such advice.
