Arbeitszeit: Arbeitszeitbetrug: So können sich Unternehmen wehren

In Germany, a phenomenon known as "workplace fraud" is not uncommon. It occurs when employees engage in activities that deviate from their assigned tasks while still claiming to be working. According to a survey by the market research institute Consumerfieldwork, 13% of 1,000 German employees admitted to not accurately reporting their working hours. Three-quarters of the participants confessed to completing personal tasks during work hours when they should have been working.

Workplace fraud is not a trivial matter, as it has significant economic implications, according to Sascha Stowasser, director of the Institute for Applied Labor Sciences (IFAA) and a researcher for many years on changes in the workforce. Failing to properly record time off can be very costly for businesses. The question then arises: when does poor employee morale turn into fraud, and what can managers do to prevent it?

Legally, workplace fraud is clear-cut. "If someone pretends to be working while doing something else, they are lying," says Michael Fuhlrott, a labor lawyer. While the difference in practice may be whether someone who has clocked in spends three hours at the gym instead of working or only hangs up their laundry for a short time, the key factor is breach of duty.

Even a brief, unreported break constitutes a breach of duty. "But if someone only works 20 hours instead of the 40 agreed upon, it is a breach of duty," Fuhlrott explains.

The consequences of such fraudulent activities can be far-reaching. If someone intentionally deceives, they may face immediate dismissal. In January 2025, the Cologne Regional Labor Court ruled in favor of a public transportation company, ordering a ticket inspector who had spent his time at his girlfriend's place, cafes, or hairdressers to be dismissed without notice.

He was also required to pay the cost of a private investigator, which amounted to 21,000 euros. "But these are extreme cases," Fuhlrott notes. While labor courts would typically follow a clear line, they also consider the intensity and duration of the fraud. "Someone who has worked at the same company for 30 years and forgot to record 20 minutes of time would be treated differently than someone who has been there for only two years and regularly books several hours incorrectly," Fuhlrott explains.

Financial compensation, as in the Cologne case, or even criminal prosecution for workplace fraud are rare in practice. Although it is possible to prosecute for fraud, the state prosecutor typically shows little appetite to pursue such cases.

Employees, however, should keep in mind that workplace fraud is not a new problem. "Employees have been secretly doing private activities during work for decades," says labor scientist Stowasser. This could include secretly browsing Facebook or eBay instead of working on a new project, or making private phone calls. Most employees, according to Stowasser, do not do this out of spite or vindictiveness.

Instead, workplace fraud often stems from poorly defined goals and inadequate management. "Without clear goals, there are empty spaces that employees then fill for themselves, such as by buying groceries or browsing the internet," Stowasser says. When superiors fail to notice these violations over a long period, it is a clear case of leadership failure.

"Managers must find realistic goals for their employees in conversations," he adds. Often, they are unaware of how long certain tasks will take. Workplace fraud is not discovered simply through general monitoring or even hiring a private detective. "For that, there must be a concrete suspicion," Fuhlrott explains. This means the employer must have certain indications of the employee's misconduct.

"Often, colleagues gossip," Fuhlrott says. In his career, Classen has also encountered instances where an ex-partner provided crucial information. Surveillance must follow strict rules. A private detective conducting an investigation must adhere to clear guidelines. For example, they cannot secretly enter a private residence and install cameras, as this would make them a criminal themselves.

The video would not be admissible in court. The same applies to recordings made without consent. "Recording conversations without permission is only allowed in very limited circumstances due to data protection laws," says Nathale Oberthür, an employment lawyer in Cologne. The surveillance must meet three criteria: it must be suitable for clarification and necessary.