A hearing in October finally saw some movement on the implementation of a law on working time recording. However, no agreement has yet been reached, as the proposals contained everything from very detailed to the most flexible legislation possible. The proposals, and therefore the reason for the public hearing, came from the CDU/CSU parliamentary group and the left-wing parliamentary group.
The applications for the hearing
Back in 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the recording of working time would become mandatory in all EU member states. Since then, not much has been done in Germany to implement this obligation. However, thanks to the motions tabled by the CDU/CSU and the Left Party, things are now moving again. The motions were discussed at a public hearing in October.
The Union’s motion
The CDU/CSU presented the motion “Reducing bureaucracy in the recording of working hours – enabling more flexible working”. It includes these demands, among others:
- Less bureaucracy
- Retention of self-determined trust-based working hours
- Linking the working time recording reform with the working time reform
- Moving away from the rigid eight-hour model
- Flexibility of working time recording
- Free choice of time recording system
- No daily recording of working hours
- Options for delegating time recording to employees
The Left’s motion
The Left Party presented its motion entitled “Strengthening employment rights – documenting working time in accordance with European law”. Their demands include the following:
- Obligation of employers to record the start, end and duration of daily working hours
- More transparency for overtime and its remuneration
- Complete documentation of working hours
- Facilitating the enforcement of remuneration claims
The two motions are relatively opposed to each other, as the CDU/CSU is calling for more flexibility, especially for employers, while the Left wants employers to be more obliged to provide accurate documentation.
Results of the hearing
The public hearing did not provide any precise results. As expected, two factions formed. Unsurprisingly, the representatives of the employers’ associations sided with the Union and advocated flexible options. In particular, the distribution of maximum working hours over the week instead of the day, as was previously the case, met with great approval. The Left Party received support from the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB), which advocated the implementation of precise working time recording and rest breaks. The DGB is also in favor of maintaining the eight-hour working day but limiting the maximum daily working hours. Many speakers advocated limiting the methods used to record time. Above all, it is important that the system is tamper-proof. For this reason, many at the hearing were of the opinion that it will come down to a digital variant for a daily recording obligation. The issue of trust-based working hours was controversial during the hearing. In addition to a clear definition of what this actually means, the various sides were also unable to agree on the extent to which it should continue to exist. If trust-based working hours are defined by the employees themselves, this will continue to be possible. The Union’s fear that trust-based working hours would no longer be enforceable due to overly rigid regulations is therefore unfounded. However, it is important that the maximum working hours are not exceeded. To protect employees, the proposal was made to limit weekly working hours to a maximum of 48 hours. To ensure that this is adhered to, a burden of proof was demanded. Employers would therefore be obliged to prove compliance with the limits. Another demand in this context was fines for breaches of this obligation. Of course, nothing was ultimately decided. The hearing served more to gather arguments for both sides.
Conclusion
Four years after the ECJ ruling and just under a year after the Federal Labor Court ruling, there is some movement in the legal situation surrounding working time recording. Nothing is certain. Apart from the fact that a new law is needed. However, it remains to be seen what form this will take. Many variants are conceivable. Digital time recording methods are more secure and offer the necessary flexibility. However, employers do not have to be forced into a rigid system, as modern time recording methods are versatile. Unfortunately, this was not discussed at the hearing.
