Wherever working time is recorded, it is theoretically possible to cheat. Especially in times of digital and mobile working time recording, employers’ trust in their employees is a decisive factor for a functioning employment relationship. Working time fraud makes it difficult to build this trust. But how can such fraud even be detected?
When do we speak of working time fraud?
Working time fraud comes in different forms. Sometimes employees are not even aware of the fraud. For example, employees may pursue private matters during their working hours. For example, they may use the company laptop to place a quick order in an online store or do some shopping for the weekend on their business trip. Strictly speaking, private activities during working hours are working time fraud. After all, you don’t get paid to lie on the sofa at home, even if many of us would like to see this profession finally invented.
The classic form of working time fraud, however, takes place at the start of work: clocking in early at the workplace. This can happen before the actual start of the shift or is usually done by an accomplice who “clocks in” for a colleague because they are running a little late. Or it is clocked out later because a colleague had to finish work earlier due to an appointment.
With timesheets, working time fraud is even easier. In theory, employees can simply enter any time they like. As long as it is realistic, the fraud is hardly noticeable. A few extra minutes here and there won’t hurt anyone, will it?
Of course, this is not a major problem for employees. What difference does a few extra minutes make? The problem for the employer, however, is that a few minutes can quickly turn into a few hours if several of his employees do the same.
Recognizing and proving working time fraud
The consequences for working time fraud usually depend on the intention. In the case of minor private excursions, an equally minor warning to refrain from doing so in future is sufficient. However, if it is clear that the company is being deliberately harmed, the penalty may be a warning or even immediate dismissal.
For example, if an employee puts a lot of energy and effort into working time fraud, dismissal without notice is often the only sensible step. A basis of trust can then hardly be created. This would apply to an employee who deliberately manipulates working time recording systems in order to extract more recorded working time for themselves.
With modern working time recording methods, working time fraud is still possible, but the effort involved is greater and the intention is therefore more clearly recognizable.
Location recording
For example, the advantage of time recording systems with a location query is that it is always possible to see who clocked in where and when. Although fraud is still possible in this case, it involves a lot of effort and is therefore rather unlikely.
The disadvantage of location tracking, however, is that permanent monitoring is not legally permitted. In general, the issue is difficult and the legal situation is relatively unclear. There is no clear definition of when surveillance is considered “permanent”. However, it is clear that it is not permitted to continuously equip employees with a GPS transmitter.
Biometric systems
Biometric working time recording is a very fraud-proof system. Biometric data cannot be falsified. However, employee consent is required for the use of a biometric system.
Employees must be prepared to “clock in” using fingerprints, eye scanners or facial recognition. This was decided by the Berlin-Brandenburg Regional Labor Court a few years ago in a ruling that clearly stated that a biometric system is not required under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG).
Transparent time recording
Transparent working time recording is another way of combating working time fraud: Employers and employees both gain insight into the hours worked and what these hours were spent on.
This creates a better basis of trust. Employees tend to cheat on their working hours if they feel that they are not being paid fairly. Transparent working time recording enables these employees to understand how their wages are calculated. This insight into all projects and tasks and the distribution of working hours can often allay this suspicion.
Conclusion
Working time fraud can become a problem, but it can be dealt with. This requires modern systems for recording working time and, above all, mutual trust between employers and their employees.
