Employers in Denmark must implement a system for recording the daily working hours of employees. However, almost a year on from the introduction of this obligation, challenges still persist.
This obligation was introduced for employers in Denmark to ensure (and document) compliance with the rules on daily and weekly rest periods (the 11-hour and 24-hour rules), as well as the so-called 48-hour rule on maximum weekly working hours. It has been effective since 1 July 2024 following amendments to the Danish Working Time Act (the ‘Act’), a direct consequence of a 2019 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling. However, as we approach the first anniversary of the requirement for the registration of working time in Denmark, several question marks remain for employers.
We explore the key issues below, including tips for Danish employers and possible developments on the horizon. We have then sought the insights from a range of other countries, who outline the system for recording working time in their own jurisdiction, together with some of the specific challenges faced by employers.
This requirement was introduced in Denmark as a direct consequence of the ECJ’s ruling in the ‘CCOO/Deutsche Bank’ case of 14 May 2019 (C-55/18). The ECJ confirmed that it is mandatory for EU Member States to register the duration of time worked each day in order to ensure compliance with the EU Working Time Directive on maximum working time, breaks and rest periods.
This ruling led to a change to the Act. To ensure compliance with the EU framework–but avoid over-implementation–this now states that employers in Denmark must implement an “objective, reliable and accessible” system for recording the daily working hours of individual employees. The key minimum requirements can be summarised as follows:
Aside from this, the Act does not specify how the system should be designed, and the Danish Parliament has emphasised that employers have a high degree of flexibility in this regard. Anything from a spreadsheet, to apps, to advanced time registration systems could meet the requirements as long as the data can be stored and made available to employees upon request. In practice, all kinds of systems are used for this purpose, Denmark being a country with a large proportion of small and medium sized companies.
A key issue is whether employers must register the total number of daily working hours only, or the time of day at which the work is performed, i.e. when work begins and ends. The Danish Parliament have confirmed that registering the total number of daily working hours is sufficient. This is despite the competing view of some lawyers and HR professionals, and questions remain following the recent ECJ decision of Loredas (C-531/23) in January 2025.
During the Parliament’s reading of the bill, the Ministry of Employment stated that, in its opinion, the requirements for registration of working time would be met by applying a system that can register the total number of daily working hours and, therefore, it is not a requirement under Danish law to register the time of day the work is performed. This statement has been well-received by employers that have chosen to design their time recording systems accordingly. However, it is difficult to document compliance with the rules on rest periods with a system that only records the total number of daily working hours. The 11-hour rule in particular (and sometimes the 24-hour rule) requires information on when the working day has begun and ended.
This discussion has arisen again following the ECJ’s recent ruling in Loredas. The court noted that a working time registration system must show the “distribution [of working hours] over time” as well as the total number. The decision has led some in Denmark to argue that the Act must be amended so that a requirement for registration of the time of day is included. Of course, this approach would require more administrative work and could jeopardise some of the flexibility that many employees enjoy when they leave the office early in the afternoon to spend time with their family and resume work from home later at night. So far, the Ministry of Employment has taken no steps to propose changes to the law. Whether that will hold up in the future, or if a requirement for registration of time of day for performance of work will be introduced at some point, remains to be seen.
Another issue is whether employers are: a) required to make a system for registering working time available to employees for them to then register their own working hours, or b) whether employers are required to take steps to ensure that the working hours are in fact registered.
The issue originates from the wording of the Act. When taken at face value, it could be understood as merely introducing a requirement for creating a system, informing the employees of its existence and then letting them decide whether they want to use it, without following up on whether the employees actually register any working hours. This approach, however, carries legal risk. Compliance with the rules on maximum working time, breaks and rest periods is clearly the employer’s responsibility and cannot be transferred to the employee. If faced with a claim from an employee based on the alleged violation of the working time rules, an employer that has failed to ensure the adequate registration of working time may find that it cannot prove in its defence, based on the registration, that the employee did not in fact exceed the hourly limit.
Furthermore, the rules on rest periods are subject to inspections by the Danish Working Environment Authority and so non-compliance can result in a fine for the employer. It is also a requirement that employee rest periods are discussed in the company’s health and safety organisation (companies with ten employees or more must establish a health and safety organisation) based on the working time information recorded.
It is therefore recommended that employers set up the working time registration system for employees and introduce a policy with requirements on how working time must be registered in practice (including the registration of breaks, absences etc.) and how often registrations must be updated. By doing so, employers can follow up regularly and take action where needed, e.g. if an employee is on course to work more than 48 hours per week for an extended period.
Following the 2024 changes to the Act, it is now possible for opt-out schemes for employees with ‘on-call duties’ to be agreed via collective bargaining agreements. Such schemes can only be agreed by the social partners with the broadest representation in the Danish labour market and only for employees with on-call duties in socially critical functions, such as the healthcare sector.
An exemption for certain employees, so-called ‘self-organisers’, from the 48-hour rule and from the rules on breaks and rest periods is also possible. To be considered a ‘self-organiser’, an employee’s working hours must either be such that they cannot be measured or determined in advance, or the employee must be able to organise their working hours themselves. The employee must also be able to either make independent decisions or perform managerial functions.
Despite this, there is no clear framework within the Act for determining whether an employee meets the ‘self-organiser’ criteria or how the assessment should be made. Employers must therefore rely on the limited case law from the ECJ, while we await Danish case law on the subject.
A clear starting point is that all employees must be assessed individually. Further, managers whose working hours cannot be predetermined or who plan their own working hours, maybe because they are not required to be present with their team, are the clearest example of a group of employees that can be categorised as self-organisers. It should also be possible to exempt certain non-managerial specialists in independent roles, although the ability of these employees to schedule their own working time against the requirements of practical working life for participating in meetings etc., makes it difficult to determine with any certainty if they can be categorised as a self-organiser. In a recent arbitration case, an employee was able to organise their own work to a certain extent, but this flexibility was limited to what was compatible with their tasks and deadlines. The arbitrator ruled, based on a specific assessment, that the employee did not meet the above self-organiser criteria.
Employers could avoid categorising all non-managerial employees as self-organisers to avoid these issues. However, some employers – and indeed some employees – appreciate the flexibility and trust associated with being self-organisers. Unfortunately, this potential tension does not make the employer’s decision any easier.
We are fast approach the one-year anniversary of the requirement for registering working time in Denmark. As with all legislation that introduces new practices and obligations in the workplace, issues have arisen and employers have needed to adapt. This area will continue to develop, with key areas likely put to the test in case law over the coming years. Also, the fact that registrations of working time must be made available for the workplace health and safety organisation will be an interesting development to follow.
The requirement for registering working time has also shone a light on hours worked and rest periods for many employees in Denmark, in particular salaried employees, or so-called “white-collar” employees. In the past, working hours for these employees were not as closely monitored or as discussed as they are now. With a rapidly increasing focus on mental well-being at work, we expect the number of claims relating to working time to increase as well as there being an increased focus on this topic for HR in general.
Discover our Global HR Law Guide
