Employers must record daily working time
The European Court of Justice has held that, in order to comply with the EU Working Time Directive’s (WTD) provisions, employers are obliged to set up a system for measuring actual daily working time for individual workers.
In Federacion de Services de Comisiones v Deutsche Bank SAE, a Spanish workers’ union was seeking a declaration that Deutsche Bank was under an obligation to set up a system to record the actual number of hours worked by each staff member. The ECJ found that as the worker is generally the weaker party in the employment relationship, it is important to prevent the employer from being in a position to exploit that.
Without a system that reliably records the working hours of the individuals within the business, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for workers to ensure their rights are complied with. The ECJ therefore concluded that, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the rights provided, member states must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system of recording the time worked each day by each worker.
The UK’s Working Time Regulations (WTR) require employers to keep “adequate records” to show that weekly working time limits and night work limits are being complied with, the regulations do not however require such records in relation to daily or weekly rest, nor do they require all hours to be recorded. It is therefore unlikely that the WTR go far enough to meet the requirements of this judgement. Tribunals may choose, subject to Brexit, to interpret the WTR in line with this decision if challenges are brought in the UK. Employers will need to review their processes to ensure they can demonstrate that the hours staff are working are not breaching the underlying WTD obligations.
For more information, please contact Nick Hurley.
News & Insights
Employment changes in 2020 – what do we know for certain?
This article outlines key legislative changes and cases to watch out for in 2020.
Unfair dismissal – real reason hidden from decision-maker
The Supreme Court's latest decision applies both to “ordinary” unfair dismissal as well as claims for automatic unfair dismissal.