Working Time Records

Fines and Enforcement

This is not legal advice.

Fine figures in this area are quoted without their provision, which makes them atmosphere rather than information. Several different amounts circulate and they attach to different duties. For a practical view of how organisations can translate recording duties into day-to-day workflows, see further details.

Reviewed August 9, 2026. Amounts and enforcement practice change — verify before relying on any figure here. For broader legal or policy context, see Computerwoche.

The figures and what they attach to

Up to €50,000 — breaches of the recording duty under §17 of the Minimum Wage Act (MiLoG), which applies to specified sectors. This is the figure most often quoted, and it belongs to MiLoG rather than to the general working time duty.

Up to €30,000 — figures in this range appear in connection with documentation breaches under the Working Hours Act (ArbZG) regime.

And the general working time duty derived from §3(2)(1) ArbSchG sits in the occupational health and safety framework, whose enforcement operates through orders and, on non-compliance with an order, penalties.

So "fines up to €50,000" is accurate about §17 MiLoG and is quoted about everything. That is the pattern worth checking: a figure with no provision behind it tells you nothing about your own exposure.

Who enforces

Customs (Zoll) audits minimum wage documentation duties actively, and fines have been imposed. For sectors within §17 MiLoG this is the enforcement most likely to be encountered.

State occupational health and safety authorities supervise the ArbSchG framework, which is where the general recording duty sits.

And labour courts, which is the route that matters in a dispute — an employee claiming unpaid overtime, with the employer unable to produce records.

The exposure most employers underestimate

Not the fine.

The evidential position in a dispute. The record exists so that hours can be proven, and an employer without one is in a poor position when an employee asserts a figure.

A missing record does not mean no claim can be made. It means the employer cannot contradict the employee's account with documentation, which is the situation the duty was created to prevent — in the employee's favour.

That is a larger practical risk than a fine for most employers, and it is rarely the risk described on compliance pages, because it does not create urgency in the same way.

What an inspection looks for

Practically, and this is the useful part.

That a system exists at all. The first question.

That records cover the period. Gaps are what an auditor notices.

Start, end and duration, with breaks identifiable.

That corrections are traceable rather than overwritten.

And that they can be produced — in order, for the retention period, in a readable form.

How to reduce the exposure

Have records for everybody. Classification questions are the expensive kind of gap, because they cover a whole period retroactively.

Fix gaps forward rather than reconstructing backwards. A reconstructed month is worse than an acknowledged gap, and reconstruction can be a separate problem.

Keep corrections visible.

And know which regime applies to you. An employer inside §17 MiLoG has a specific documentation duty with a specific fine and an active auditor; one outside it has a different picture entirely, and the two get discussed as one.

The short version