European Union: CJEU Reaffirms Obligation to Register Working Time
Following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) landmark decision in the CCOO case on 14 May 2019, the topic of working time registration has become a hot topic in many EU member states. In this ruling, the CJEU emphasized that the effectiveness of rights under the Working Time Directive can only be ensured if employers are mandated to implement an objective, reliable, and accessible system to record the duration of time worked by each employee. On 19 December 2024, the CJEU revisited the issue of working time registration in the Loredas case. A Spanish court sought a preliminary ruling on whether national interpretation of the legislation exempting employers of domestic workers (households) from the obligation to record actual working time was compatible with EU law. In its judgement, the CJEU reaffirmed the obligation for time registration established in the CCOO case, with some nuanced considerations.
Case Background
The case involved a full-time domestic worker in Spain. She challenged her dismissal before the labour court in Bilbao, seeking compensation for unfair dismissal, payment for overtime hours worked, and compensation for unused vacation days. The labour court rejected the claim for overtime pay, stating that the worker had not provided evidence of the hours worked or the pay claimed. The court noted that, under Spanish legislation, certain employers, including households, are exempt from the obligation to record the actual time worked by their employees. In appeal, the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country expressed doubts about the compatibility of this interpretation of the national legislation with EU law and referred the matter to the CJEU.
CJEU’s Analysis and Judgement
Compatibility with Working Time Directive
First, the CJEU looked at the compatibility with the Working Time Directive. The CJEU began by reaffirming that the right of every worker to a limitation of maximum working hours and to daily and weekly rest periods is a fundamental principle of EU social law, explicitly enshrined in the Charter and the Working Time Directive.
The Court noted that while Member States have discretion in determining the specific arrangements for implementing a system to measure daily working time, these arrangements must not render the rights enshrined in the Charter and the Working Time Directive meaningless. The CJEU highlighted the vulnerable position of workers in the employment relationship, emphasizing the need to prevent employers from imposing restrictions on workers’ rights. Without an objective and reliable system to measure working time, it becomes excessively difficult, if not impossible, for workers to ensure compliance with their rights to rest periods and limitations on working hours. Compared to the CCOO judgement, the Court has dropped the condition of “accessibility” for the registration system, but it does not explain why it did so. Hence, we wonder if the Court did this on purpose.
In the context of domestic work, the Court acknowledged the unique characteristics of the sector. In the CCOO judgement, the Court had stated that it is possible to foresee specific features because of the sector of activity concerned or because of the specific characteristics of certain employers, such as their size, provided that the maximum weekly working time is actually guaranteed.
However, in the Loredas case, the Court concluded that these specific characteristics do not justify a general exemption from the obligation to record working time. The CJEU held that a national practice or interpretation of the legislation, exempting employers of domestic workers from the obligation to record actual working time is incompatible with the Working Time Directive and Article 31(2) of the Charter.
Compatibility with Anti-Discrimination Directive
Second, the CJEU looks to the question of whether this national practice constitutes discrimination. The CJEU observed that due to the fact that most domestic workers are female, the situation can be qualified as indirect discrimination based on gender, unless if it can be objectively justified. It is up to the national court to determine whether this is the case.
Implications of the Judgement
The Loredas judgement reinforces the principles established in the CCOO case, underscoring the necessity for employers to implement systems that objectively, reliably, and accessibly record the working hours of all employees, including domestic workers. This ruling has significant implications for Member States’ national legislation, particularly in sectors where exemptions from time recording obligations exist.
Employers in the domestic work sector must now consider implementing appropriate time registration systems to comply with EU law. While the CJEU acknowledges that Member States have discretion in determining the specific arrangements for such systems, any measures adopted must ensure the full effectiveness of workers’ rights to rest periods and limitations on working hours.
This judgement also highlights the broader commitment of the EU to safeguarding workers’ rights and ensuring that fundamental principles of social law are upheld across all sectors of employment.
Conclusion
The CJEU’s decision in the Loredas case serves as a reaffirmation of the obligation for employers to establish systems that accurately record working time, extending this requirement to the domestic work sector. By doing so, the court aims to ensure that all workers, regardless of their employment context, can effectively exercise their rights to rest periods and limitations on working hours, thereby promoting better working conditions and safeguarding health and safety in the workplace. Some EU member states, including Belgium, do not have a national obligation to register working time and remain in breach of the Working Time Directive. For now, there do not seem to be any political or legislative initiatives to change this.
