Compulsory time registration: a step back or an opportunity for better workforce management?

The federal government has decided, as part of the recent budget negotiations, to introduce a general mandatory working time registration system for all employers, effective 1 January 2027. This measure aims to ensure compliance with the EU Working Time Directive. Belgium is following the example of the Netherlands, which implemented mandatory time registration for all employers in 2022, and Germany, which is moving in the same direction.

The Court of Justice of the EU requires compulsory time Registration

This decision follows rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which require Member States to oblige employers to maintain an objective, reliable, and accessible system for recording each worker’s working time. In its judgment of 14 May 2019, the CJEU stressed that without such a system, employees’ rights under the Working Time Directive and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights cannot be guaranteed.

Different views among trade unions and employers’ federations

The CJEU’s ruling sparked a debate between employers’ and employees’ representatives regarding its implications for Belgian companies. Trade unions argued in favour of mandatory time registration for all employers. Conversely, employer organisations such as VBO, Unizo, and Voka anticipated minimal impact, citing Belgium’s already strict and closely monitored working hours framework.

Current legal landscape: no general obligation yet

Despite the CJEU’s clear stance, Belgian legislation has not yet introduced a general obligation to record working time. Certain groups are already subject to registration requirements, including:

• Employees working flexible hours,

• Part-time employees with variable schedules,

• Specific professions or sectors, such as certain medical roles and the construction industry.

Legal uncertainty and contradictory case law

This discrepancy between European case law and Belgian legislation has led to inconsistent judicial decisions. For example:

• The Brussels Employment Court of Appeal (22 May 2020) shifted the burden of proof to employers, holding that in the absence of reliable time records, they risk being required to pay overtime arrears if they cannot prove the employee did not work the hours claimed.

• Conversely, the Employment Tribunal (17 September 2020) ruled that it is the legislator’s responsibility – not the employer’s – to introduce such an obligation, and that the employers should not be penalised for the lack of legislation. In that case, the burden of proof remained with employees.

Upcoming legal obligation: challenges and opportunities

While there is broad consensus that Belgium must comply with EU requirements by imposing mandatory time registration, employers have raised several concerns:

• Administrative burden: Particularly for smaller businesses, the measure may increase costs and complexity.

• Perception of mistrust: Some fear it could be seen as undermining employee autonomy.

• Risk of misinterpretation: Critics argue that recorded time may not always reflect actual work performed—for example, employees eating lunch at their desks. It should be noted that working time refers to the period during which employees must be available to follow employer instructions, not necessarily the time spent actively performing tasks. Travel time to a client, for instance, counts as working time. The concern is understandable though as, in reality, the salary is often directly related to the working hours rather than the hours worked.

Potential benefits of pragmatic implementation

If designed to be user-friendly, flexible, and digital, time registration systems could enhance transparency, especially for workers partially working remotely whose hours may currently go unnoticed. Up to a certain level, the time recording system could even support more flexible working arrangements. Monitoring working time can also protect employees from excessive workloads, support better work-life balance, and improve company metrics related to burnout and absenteeism.

Today’s flexible and remote working arrangements often blur the lines between professional and personal life. A well-implemented time registration system could help clarify these boundaries and foster a healthier work culture.

Conclusion

Mandatory working time registration need not be a step backward. If implemented pragmatically—with a focus on employee protection rather than bureaucracy and supported by flexible digital tools—it can promote fair labour practices, transparency, and better workforce management. The key will be balancing compliance with practical realities to ensure the system benefits both employers and employees.