Working Time Records

Implementing

This is not legal advice.

Seven functional requirements follow from three words. Objective: records made at the time, and actual times rather than confirmed schedules. Reliable: a full change history, no silent overwriting, retention with records producible in order. Accessible: employees see their own records, and export works in a readable form. For an additional implementation-oriented example, see learn more here.

Mobile clock-in, geofencing, task attribution, dashboards and integrations satisfy none of the seven. They may still be worth having; they are not what the standard asks for, and a system chosen on them can fail all seven. For additional workplace and technology context, see Eurofound.

For many employers the whole implementation is a page. A form with four columns, a same-day routine, a weekly ten-minute check by a named person, a place to keep them, and a corrections rule. The weekly check is what converts a pile of forms into a system, and it is the part omitted.

Corrections are ordinary and how they are made decides everything. Never overwrite; record who, when and why. One erased and rewritten figure gives an inspector reason to doubt the whole file, and a struck-through entry with an initial strengthens it. For additional workplace and technology context, see Harvard Business Review.

Where a works council exists, involve it early. The decision that created the duty was itself a works council case, and late involvement means a supplier's defaults have already answered the questions the council would have raised.

Remote and mobile work need decisions made in advance. When the day starts for somebody travelling from home, whether travel between jobs counts, how waiting and standby are treated — each has money attached, and inconsistency is what gets noticed rather than the answer itself.