BuzbyTimeRead the requirements guide

The law, named by jurisdiction · 3.6

Availability, overtime and the right to disconnect

Availability, overtime and the right to disconnect. What decides it, what it costs, and what usually goes wrong. For a practical comparison point, see Monitask's e-commerce time tracking.

The ruling that made time recording an obligationWorth knowing

In 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union held that member states must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of daily working time to be measured.

The reasoning was that rights to limits on working time and to rest cannot be verified without a record. Implementation has varied between member states and the direction is settled. Teams comparing the wider operating context can also consult Acas.

Which places this software in an unusual position: in much of Europe the question is not whether to record working time but how.

The record protects the worker

That is what the ruling was about, and it is the framing most often missing when these systems are introduced. A record of hours is the evidence somebody needs to establish that they worked beyond their limits, that rest periods were not given, or that overtime is owed.

An employer who presents time recording as a control measure has chosen the framing least likely to be accepted and least accurate about what the obligation exists for.

The right to disconnect

Several jurisdictions have legislated in this area, in different forms. France has had provisions since 2017 requiring negotiation on the use of digital tools outside working hours. Belgium, Portugal and Spain have adopted measures. Ontario requires employers above a size threshold to have a written policy. Australia introduced a right to disconnect in 2024.

They differ substantially: some create an enforceable right, others require a policy or a negotiation. What they share is that out-of-hours contact has become a regulated question rather than a cultural one.

What a time record shows about this

Entries at ten in the evening. Weekend work. Rest periods shorter than the minimum. A pattern of somebody consistently exceeding their hours.

All of which is evidence, and it is evidence whether or not the employer looks at it. An organisation holding records showing systematic overtime has knowledge of it, and in several jurisdictions knowledge carries obligations.

The honest response is to look, and to act on what is there. The alternative is a record that will be read later by somebody else.

Which cuts both ways

Time recording is frequently resisted by employers who intuit this. It is a reasonable intuition and it is the wrong conclusion: the hours are being worked either way, and the absence of a record does not remove the obligation, only the ability to manage it.

What to do with what you find

  • Look at out-of-hours entries monthly, at team level.
  • Treat a consistent pattern as a resourcing question rather than a personal one.
  • Where a policy on availability exists, check the record against it rather than assuming.

Not advice

The obligations described here differ by country, by sector and sometimes by collective agreement, and the area is moving quickly. This entry names regimes and states no rule. Take advice covering everywhere your people work.

Availability is not working time, until it is

Being contactable and being at work are different, and where the line falls has been litigated repeatedly. The general shape of the answer is that the more the arrangement constrains what somebody can do with the period, the more likely it is to count.

A worker who must respond within minutes and stay within reach is in a different position from one who might receive a call.

What to record

If on-call arrangements exist, record them as their own category. It is the only way to know how often they activate, and the frequency is the fact that determines both the burden and, in several jurisdictions, part of the legal analysis.

Policies that say nothing

A disconnect policy stating that employees are not expected to respond outside hours, in an organisation where they do, is a document that will be produced against you rather than for you.

Either the practice changes or the policy should describe the practice. The record shows which it is.

The management version

Independently of any obligation: a team consistently working beyond its hours is a resourcing signal that arrives months before the resignations. It is the most valuable thing in this part of the blog and it requires nothing but looking.

Where this leaves an employer

With an obligation in much of Europe to record working time at all, a growing set of rules about contact outside it, and a record that will evidence whichever way the facts fall.

The workable position is to record accurately, look at what the record shows monthly, and treat patterns as resourcing questions. Everything else in this part follows from doing that honestly.

A short summary

The record exists partly to protect the worker, and saying so changes how it is received. Out-of-hours patterns are visible whether or not you look. Availability arrangements deserve their own category. And a policy that contradicts the record is worse than no policy.

A closing note

Of everything in this part, the point most worth carrying is that the record cuts both ways. It is evidence for the employer and evidence for the worker, and a system designed as though only the first mattered will eventually be read by somebody interested in the second.

What to look at first

Entries recorded outside your standard hours, over the last quarter, by team. Ten minutes, and it either reassures you or tells you something you needed to know several months ago.

Also in the law, named by jurisdiction