Time clocks, really? CJEU’s decision on recording working hours and its effect on Czech employers
In the middle of May this year, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) issued a judgment holding that member states must stipulate the employers’ obligation to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system allowing to measure the duration of time worked each day for all workers. The response was turbulent and not just in Spain – reports of the duty to install a time clock at all workplaces also appeared in the Czech media. What are the real implications of the ruling for our legal environment?
The CJEU reviewed the compliance of Spanish laws regulating the recording of working time with the respective articles of the EU Working Time Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. These stipulate an employee’s right to a limitation on the maximum number of working hours and to daily and weekly rest periods. Yet, the Spanish labour code only stipulates an employer’s duty to keep records of working time for hours worked overtime. Therefore, while it sets the maximum working hours and minimum rest periods, it does not allow to measure, in an objective and reliable manner, the number of hours worked by an employee, their distribution and the number of overtime hours worked. The court held that, in the absence of a system enabling to measure this, it cannot be guaranteed that the workers’ rights to a maximum working hours and a minimum rest period are observed.
Many media called the ruling ground-breaking, stating that it imposed a new duty on employers to keep records of working time for all employees – even those who are not usually present at the employer’s premises, such as sales representatives or employees working from home. However, such an interpretation is incorrect. Under the Czech Labour Code, employers are already obliged to keep records of hours worked, for all employees, even to a wider extent that the ruling implies.
Czech employers are obliged to mark in their records the beginning and end of a shift worked, overtime work, night work, as well as the time when the employee was on stand-by duty (on call) and the time when they actually worked. Employers have to meet this duty for all employees, without a difference. Employees have the right to inspect the records, and make copies at the employer’s cost. If an employer fails to keep the records in the prescribed scope, they face a penalty by the Labour Inspection Office of up to CZK 400 000.
The Labour Code does not specify in what manner the records of working time are to be kept; that is fully up to the employer. Yet, whichever way they choose must be supportable and provide a clear view of whether, when, and to what extent the employee worked the stipulated working hours. In no way does the judgment imply a duty to reintroduce time clocks or another attendance system.
As for employees who do not spent their working time or its part at employers’ premises, their collaboration in keeping proper records is necessary. The employer may therefore impose a duty on the employees to provide information on their hours worked, on regular basis. This, however, does not liberate the employer from the duty to keep records of time worked – its purpose is solely to obtain all necessary underlying information.
Therefore, the CJEU judgment should not have any significant impact in the Czech Republic. Yet, record-keeping of working time should not be underestimated by employers – observance of duties concerning working time is frequently targeted by labour inspections. Furthermore, the media coverage of the judgment has raised awareness of this duty on the part of employees and trade unions.