In brief
On 30 September 2026, the National Labor Council (NLC) issued an opinion on a preliminary draft law that would require employers to introduce a daily and weekly working time registration system for their employees.
The proposal is intended to align Belgian law with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Working Time Directive.
The legislative process is ongoing. The government must still determine the final text before it can be submitted to Parliament. The scope, technical requirements and timing may therefore still change.
Although the opinion of the NLC is not binding, it does provide insight on the fundamental difference in views between employer and employee organizations on what a working time registration should look like in practice.
Key takeaways
The key features of the current preliminary draft law can be summarized as follows:
- General obligation: employers would be required to record the daily and weekly working time of each employee in an objective and reliable manner.
- Technology-neutral approach: the draft does not prescribe any specific time-recording tool. A system that records only deviations from the applicable fixed or variable schedule may be sufficient, provided that it objectively and reliably registers actual working time.
- Broad scope: the obligation is intended to apply across both the private and public sectors.
- Proposed exemptions: family workers, managerial staff, persons of trust, sales representatives and mobile workers would be excluded from the obligation. Additional categories may be exempted by royal decree.
- Implementation timeline: the draft provides for entry into force on 1 January 2027. Employers would have until 31 March 2027 to comply their practices with the new requirements.
The preliminary draft law must still complete the legislative process so the specific working registration requirements that will apply as from 2027 may differ from the current draft.
In more detail
What would the preliminary draft require?
The preliminary draft would require an employer to put in place a system capable of recording the daily and weekly working time actually performed by each employee in an objective and reliable manner. The proposal does not impose a particular format, leaving employers with a degree of flexibility to use a system suited to their organization.
The proposal is linked to European case law and reflects the view that compliance with maximum working time limits and minimum rest periods cannot be effectively monitored without objective and reliable working-time records.
The draft accepts a deviation-based system, under which only deviations from the applicable fixed or variable work schedule are recorded, provided that the employee’s actual working time can still be determined objectively and reliably.
Why is the NLC divided?
The employer and employee representatives disagree both on the need for a general obligation and on the extent of such obligation.
Employer organizations:
- Consider a general statutory obligation unnecessary, disproportionate and ill-suited to modern forms of work based on autonomy, flexibility and trust.
- Argue that the existing Belgian framework already contains rules, documentation duties, controls and evidentiary mechanisms that protect working-time and rest-period rights.
- Warn of substantial implementation and administration costs.
- Request at least one year from publication of the act to implement the new rules.
Trade unions:
- Support a general working-time registration requirement, but argue that the current draft does not go far enough.
- Request an objective, reliable and accessible system, including access for employees, employee representatives, inspectors and labor prosecutors.
- Reject deviation-only registration as insufficient and call for registration of actual daily working time and breaks.
- Request statutory minimum data requirements, electronic registration, effective sanctions and a shift of the burden of proof where an employer fails to register correctly.
- Challenge several proposed exclusions, including those concerning managerial or confidential staff, teleworkers and mobile workers.
What should employers do now?
Although the proposal is not yet final, the envisaged implementation timeline is relatively short. Employers may therefore wish to begin assessing whether their existing systems can objectively and reliably record actual working time, while closely monitoring further developments in the legislative process.