Timesheets in court – four rulings that shaped Norwegian working time

Most people think of a timelisteA timesheet recording actual working hours, breaks and overtime per employee. (timesheet) as slightly dull admin: a few numbers in a spreadsheet that have to add up before payroll. But the moment a disagreement about working time ends up in court, it is precisely those numbers that decide the case. Who worked when? For how long? And who can prove it?

In recent years both Norwegian courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union have handed down rulings that have changed how we understand working time – and that have made the recording of time more important than ever. In this article we go through four decisions every employer should know, explained in plain language and without legal fog. They all share one simple lesson: the one who keeps their hours in order stands on the firmest ground.

Please note that this is a general account and not legal advice. If you are facing a specific case, you should talk to a lawyer.

Why does working time so often end up in court?

Working time is about more than pay. The rules in the arbeidsmiljølovenThe Norwegian Working Environment Act, which regulates working conditions including working hours. (Working Environment Act) chapter 10 are meant to protect employees from excessively long days, secure rest and provide predictability. When something goes wrong – unpaid overtime, an unclear on-call arrangement or an inspection from the Labour Inspection Authority (Arbeidstilsynet) – there is usually disagreement about two things: what actually counts as working time, and how much was really worked.

The first is a legal question the courts have spent years clarifying. The second is a question of evidence, and here the timesheet is the key witness. The rulings below show both sides of the matter.

It is also worth noting that very few cases start as a major matter of principle. They usually begin small: an employee who feels some hours were never paid, an on-call arrangement no one quite thought through, or a trip that suddenly turns out to be more than just transport. Only when the sums grow, or when the Labour Inspection Authority knocks, does it become serious. By then it is too late to create the documentation – it has to already exist.

Ruling 1: When all of Europe had to start recording working time

In May 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a ruling that changed the framework for working-time recording across the whole EEA at a stroke. The case was between the trade union CCOO and the Spanish branch of Deutsche Bank (C-55/18), and the question was simple: must an employer have a system that records how many hours each employee actually works?

Deutsche Bank argued no – recording overtime was enough. The Court was crystal clear in its conclusion: member states must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system that measures the daily working time of each individual employee. The reasoning was a matter of principle. Without such recording, both the maximum weekly working time of 48 hours and the right to daily and weekly rest become impossible to enforce in practice. Then the employee’s rights are merely words on paper.

Why does a Spanish bank ruling concern a Norwegian business? Because the Working Time Directive the ruling interprets is part of the EEA Agreement and therefore binding on Norway too. The ruling was a strong signal that sporadic or discretionary time recording is not enough – working time must be capable of being documented in black and white. For Norwegian employers this reinforces the duty that already follows from § 10-7 of the Working Environment Act: there must be an overview of how much each person works.

The lesson is as simple as it is uncomfortable for those who still record hours on scraps of paper: a recording system is not a “nice to have”. It is the precondition for the rest of the working-time rules to be checkable at all.

Ruling 2: When the journey became working time – but not overtime

The next ruling comes from the Norwegian Supreme Court and concerns a police officer, Thorbjørn Selstad Thue. The case (HR-2018-1036-A) involved three assignments where he travelled to and from a location other than his usual workplace, outside ordinary working hours. He drove a service vehicle, checked in with the operations centre on departure and carried a weapon along the way. The question was whether this travel time should count as arbeidstid (working time) or as free time.

Before the Supreme Court reached its conclusion, it obtained an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court (case E-19/16). Both arrived at the same answer: during the journeys Thue was at the employer’s disposal, and the travel time therefore had to count as working time under chapter 10 of the Working Environment Act. A unanimous Supreme Court held that the decisive factor is whether the employee is at the disposal of the employer to carry out tasks – not how intensively they actually work while travelling.

But here comes the instructive twist: even though Thue won on the question that the travel time was working time, he was not paid overtime for it. The court distinguished between working time in the sense of the Act and overtime pay under the collective agreement and pay provisions. The fact that something counts as working time does not automatically mean it triggers overtime pay.

For employers this is a useful reminder that the concept of working time is broader than many think. Travel between assignments, required errands and time when the employee is at the employer’s disposal can count as working time – and should therefore be captured in the timesheet. When the lines do have to be drawn, it is far easier to do so on a complete time record than to reconstruct who was where after the fact.

Ruling 3: When “being available” is not working time

If the second ruling widened the concept of working time, the next one drew an outer limit. In November 2023 the Supreme Court handed down a ruling (HR-2023-2068-A) concerning an employee on an offshore installation on the Norwegian continental shelf. The work schedule alternated between so-called availability periods and leave periods, and the question was whether the availability time – time when the employee was available but not necessarily working – should count as working time.

The Supreme Court held that the availability time was not working time in the sense of the Act. The court clarified the lower boundary of the working-time concept: being available is not enough. What matters is whether the employee is subject to restrictions that objectively and significantly affect their ability to use their free time and pursue their own interests. The court also held that an on-call duty is not automatically working time; it depends on how intrusive the arrangement actually is.

Here is the rule of thumb the courts have developed: the shorter the response time, the more it points to the whole period being working time. If the response time is only a few minutes, so that the employee is in practice tied to the spot, the time is presumed to be working time. With a generous response time and genuine freedom, it points the other way. For beredskapsvakt (on-call duty) outside the workplace, the Act also provides a specific rule in § 10-4: as a starting point at least 1/7 of the duty counts as working time, depending on how burdensome the arrangement is.

The lesson for employers who run on-call and standby arrangements is that the classification cannot be made off the cuff. It requires a concrete assessment of the restrictions – and that assessment becomes far easier when you have a vaktplanA shift plan showing planned working hours – who works when. (shift plan) and a timesheet that actually show how the arrangement plays out in practice.

Ruling 4: The silent loser – the employer without a timesheet

The fourth “case” is not a single famous ruling, but a pattern that recurs in countless disputes over overtime and pay: what happens when the parties disagree about how much was worked, and the employer cannot document it?

The starting point is that the employer has a duty to keep an overview of working time under § 10-7 of the Working Environment Act, and that it is the employer who bears responsibility for the overview being correct and up to date – even when the employee records the hours themselves. When that overview is missing or incomplete, the situation quickly turns in the employee’s favour. Without credible documentation from the employer, the employee’s own notes and account carry more weight, and the employer ends up paying for hours they can neither confirm nor deny.

The same applies to an inspection from the Labour Inspection Authority. The Authority can demand access to the working-time overview at any time, and it is the business that must be able to present it. A missing overview is in itself a breach of the law and can be met with orders and penalty fees – entirely regardless of whether anyone has actually worked too much.

This is perhaps the most important lesson of all, and it costs nothing to take on board: in a dispute about working time, the one who cannot document loses. An up-to-date timesheet is not just a payroll tool. It is the business’s insurance the day someone asks questions.

What the rulings have in common

Four different cases, four different outcomes – but one common thread. The courts have made the concept of working time both broader and more precise: travel time can be working time, mere availability is not necessarily, and the boundaries are decided by a concrete assessment. At the same time they have raised the bar for documentation. The Court of Justice requires a genuine recording system, Norwegian law requires an up-to-date overview, and the burden of proof falls on whoever does not keep their hours in order.

For a business this means two things must be in place at once: you have to understand what counts as working time in your operation, and you have to be able to document it on an ongoing basis. The first takes a little legal awareness. The second takes a good system.

How to avoid ending up in the same situation

You need neither a lawyer nor an accountant to take the most important steps. Make sure employees record their working time continuously, not at the end of the month when the details are forgotten. Capture what easily slips through – travel between assignments, required errands and on-call and standby time – so you have a complete picture if the lines have to be drawn. Separate breaks and overtime clearly, and keep the history, so the overview is ready both for payroll and for any inspection.

This is exactly what an electronic timesheet is built for. In Timelista employees clock in and out on their phone, the hours are summed automatically with breaks and overtime, and you are left with an up-to-date overview ready for both payroll and the Labour Inspection Authority. When it connects with the shift plan and the personalliste in the same system, you also see plan, actual time and attendance side by side – exactly the documentation the rulings above are about.

Frequently asked questions

Timelista brings electronic timesheet, shift plan and personallisteA staff register showing who is actually at work at a location, with start and end times. Mandatory in certain Norwegian industries. together in one place – built for Norwegian working-time rules. Create a free account and see for yourself.