Working time records: registers, time clocks and proof

Quick answer. Recording working time is an employer obligation when employees do not follow the same collective schedule (art. L3171-2 of the French Labour Code). No text imposes a time clock: what matters is a reliable, tamper-proof system. In a dispute, the burden of proof is shared (art. L3171-4).

A director often calls us after the fact, once an employee has brought a claim before the labour court (conseil de prud'hommes) for overtime. Our first question is simple: do you have a working time record, and is it reliable? When the answer is no, the company is in trouble, not because the employee is necessarily right, but because it has nothing to put forward. This article sets out what the law actually requires, what it does not (a time clock), how the burden of proof works, and how to choose a compliant tracking tool.

At Hayot Expertise, a firm registered with the Order of Chartered Accountants of Ile-de-France, we deal with this every day in our payroll practice. It is a compliance point many SMEs underestimate, until the first dispute.

The core obligation fits into one article. Under article L3171-2 of the Labour Code, the employer must draw up the documents needed to record working time, the compensatory rest acquired and its actual use, for each employee who does not work according to the same collective schedule. In other words: as soon as an employee has individualised hours (flexible hours, hour-based fixed packages, modulated part-time, shift work), an individual record becomes mandatory.

The practical arrangements are set out in articles D3171-1 to D3171-16 of the Labour Code. Where the record relies on an automatic recording system, case law requires it to be reliable and tamper-proof. A free spreadsheet that everyone fills in by hand, with no locking or validation, does not really meet that condition.

The obligation therefore concerns the existence of a serious record, not a particular device. A time clock, a signed weekly statement, a time-management software or a module integrated with payroll are all acceptable, provided they are reliable. For an SME structuring its HR administration, it is also a chance to equip the SME's HR management rather than improvise.

No. No text imposes a time clock or punch device. This is a frequent point of confusion: many directors believe installing a time clock is a legal requirement, when it is only one of the possible ways to keep the record required by article L3171-2.

The choice of tool depends on size, organisation and budget. A weekly paper statement signed by the employee and the manager may suffice in a very small structure; time-management software becomes relevant as soon as schedules grow complex or headcount increases.

Quick decision: which recording tool for which situation#

Whatever tool is chosen, the export must feed payroll cleanly. We systematically check this point, in line with the full guide to the 2026 DSN return: a record that does not translate into a payslip and a return remains an orphan document.

This is the heart of the matter and the source of the risk. Article L3171-4 of the Labour Code organises a sharing of proof: in a dispute over the existence or number of hours worked, the employer provides the judge with the elements likely to justify the hours actually worked; in light of those elements and of those provided by the employee, the judge forms a conviction.

The Court of Cassation, in settled case law based on this text, makes clear that the proof of hours does not fall specifically on either party. The employee must first present sufficiently precise elements regarding the unpaid hours claimed, so that the employer can respond by producing its own elements.

Our reading. Sharing the burden of proof is not sharing the risk equally. The employee needs precise elements, not perfect proof: a personal log, time-stamped emails, messages or schedules are often enough to clear the first step. From there, it is for the employer to produce its record. With none, it cannot contradict the employee, and the judge rules on the only elements available. The lack of a reliable system turns a shared burden into a near-certain loss.

The underestimated risk. Many directors think the absence of any requested overtime protects them. In reality, it is the absence of a record that exposes them: with no trace, they can prove neither the actual hours nor the rest taken. The dispute does not stop at the salary claim; it can extend to undeclared work, leave and rest counterparts.

Two logics overlap: the limitation period for litigation and the retention periods for personal data.

The action to claim salary, which includes overtime claims, is time-barred after three years (art. L3245-1 of the Labour Code). Keeping time records for at least three years is therefore the prudent minimum from a proof standpoint: it is exactly the period over which an employee can make a claim.

On the GDPR side, the CNIL sets out periods for tracking devices: access logging data are in principle deleted about three months after recording, while identification and working-time-tracking data may be kept in intermediate archiving for up to five years, at most five years after the employee leaves.

Installing a device to monitor working hours means complying with the GDPR and CNIL recommendations. Three rules shape the choice.

1. Badge time clocks are accepted. They record the day and time of clocking and are considered proportionate for monitoring hours.
2. Biometrics and photos are generally excessive. Facial recognition or a systematic photo at each clocking, for the sole purpose of monitoring hours, are deemed contrary to the minimisation principle. The CNIL has issued formal notices against employers using photo time clocks.
3. No misuse of purpose. A device installed for security and access control cannot, for convenience, be used to monitor hours: the purpose must be declared and respected.

In practice, before any deployment, employees must be informed and the social and economic committee (CSE) consulted where one exists, the purpose and retention period documented, and access to the data limited. A well-configured tool whose export feeds payroll directly saves time at every closing. Our clients often use Pennylane for payroll and management alongside a time module.

Here is the sequence we recommend when a company has no reliable system yet.

1. Identify the employees concerned: all those who do not follow a strictly identical collective schedule.
2. Choose a proportionate tool (signed statement, locked spreadsheet, software or time clock) based on headcount and complexity.
3. Define a validation procedure: who enters data, who checks it, how often.
4. Keep records for at least three years, archiving the data properly in line with CNIL periods.
5. Connect the export to payroll and the DSN return to avoid double entry.
6. Inform employees and, where relevant, consult the CSE before any automatic device.

This setup is also the right time to check consistency with the collective salary grid and with the payroll treatment of absences, which also depend on a clean record.

What the authorities look at. During a URSSAF inspection, the inspector examines the consistency between hours paid, hours declared and the actual record: a gap between an untracked record and undeclared overtime is a classic redressement signal. The record is therefore not only protection before the labour court, but also a way to secure social contributions.

Beyond domestic law, the Court of Justice of the European Union requires Member States to provide an objective, reliable and accessible system to measure daily working time. This European requirement reinforces the underlying trend: recording is not a secondary formality but a structuring obligation. For an SME, anticipating is better than reacting after a dispute.

The working-hours register remains available to the labour inspectorate and, where relevant, to employee representatives. The CSE may ask to check its consistency within its remit, without accessing individual data beyond what is necessary.