How Long Do I Keep Time Tracking Data in a Restaurant?

Usually at least two years, but not always exactly two

I do not keep time tracking data in Germany only until payroll is done. For legally relevant working-time records, the practical baseline is usually at least two years: within the scope of the Minimum Wage Act, certain working times must be retained for at least two years, and records required under the Working Hours Act must also be retained for at least two years. That is a minimum retention period, not an automatic deletion date after exactly 24 months. The legal basis, the purpose of the record, and the document type all matter. For Germany, status 30 September 2026, that follows from MiLoG section 17 and ArbZG section 16.

In my restaurant, that means I treat a stamped Saturday evening shift, a recorded break, and a corrected clock-out time as time data that may need to be retained. I do not delete them just because next week’s rota is already published. At the same time, I do not keep every duplicate export and every temporary note forever. I separate the actual time record from payroll preparation papers and from tax-relevant supporting documents. So when team members ask, I answer honestly: expect at least two years for the core evidence, but do not assume one single universal period for everything that somehow relates to working time.

Why the same shift can matter for different lengths of time

The most common misunderstanding is simple: “two years” sounds like a blanket storage rule for every file connected to work. I do not organise it that way. Tax records can have different retention periods depending on the document type; the German Fiscal Code distinguishes, for example, between books and records, accounting vouchers, and other tax documents. But that does not mean every individual time stamp must automatically be stored for ten years. In practice, I check which document exists only to prove working time and which document also forms part of tax-relevant records. The legal orientation for that distinction is in AO section 147.

A concrete hospitality example helps. Suppose a cook clocks 14:02 to 22:41, with a documented break and a closing-time correction made by the shift lead. I need those time entries to verify working time and often to prepare payroll. If that same shift later appears inside an accounting-relevant document or another traceable booking context, a different retention period can apply to that document than to the pure time stamp itself. That is why I do not promise anyone a formula like “everything disappears after two years” or “everything stays for ten years.” I check the real question every time: what exactly is this dataset being kept for?

Data protection does not mean deleting early at any cost

From a data protection perspective, I keep time tracking data only as far as it is necessary for the employment relationship. For employee data in Germany, purpose limitation, data minimisation, transparency, and appropriate retention all matter. That means I do not collect time data out of curiosity, I explain to the team what the recording is for, and I limit access. But I also do not delete records too early if I still need them to comply with legal obligations. Those basic rules follow from section 26 BDSG and the GDPR, especially on purpose limitation, access rights, and security measures.

That matters in a restaurant because time tracking becomes sensitive very quickly. If a server asks why old shifts are still visible, I do not answer, “because the system keeps them.” I answer with the actual purpose: proof of hours, review, possible correction, payroll preparation, and compliance with legal duties. On the other hand, I must not turn those records into a permanent performance scoreboard. Someone who only needs to check their own hours or an open correction does not need access to every colleague’s working history. In my operation, data protection is therefore not a reflex to delete first; it is an organised combination of clear purpose, limited access, and planned retention.

How I organise time records fairly in daily restaurant practice

It only becomes fair when I define the rules before a dispute starts. In Bonzumo, I can use time tracking, working time accounts, and roles and permissions so that not every person can see or change everything. For example, a shift lead in my setup may review exceptions without automatically handling every HR topic. Team members should be able to understand their own times, while corrections are handled by the responsible role. For me, the key point is that time data belongs to a clean team process instead of just running in the background. That is also why I keep responsibilities visible for the team in a structured way: Give your team a clear start to every working shift.

A practical example: the shared tablet by the side entrance is used at the start of each shift. If a temporary runner forgets to clock out, we do not quietly invent an end time. Instead, we mark the case as open, clarify the actual finishing time with reference to the shift, and document who made the correction. That is fairer for the employee and more reliable for the business. The retention question belongs to the same process. What we accept as a real time booking or a justified correction stays on file for as long as the proof purpose and the legal duties require it. Temporary paper notes used only to bridge the moment get destroyed after they have been properly transferred.

Mistakes I avoid during provider changes, exports, and deletion

A common mistake is switching systems too early. If I change provider or reorganise my filing, I do not schedule deletion before export and continued retention are genuinely secured. That matters especially for time data that still touches ongoing reviews, questions from staff, or payroll preparation. If a business simply switches off access and later realises evidence is missing, that is not only an organisational problem; it can also create conflict with employees or public authorities. So before any migration I check three points: which time periods must come along, in which format they remain readable, and who is responsible for keeping them afterwards.

With Bonzumo, I do not rely on an invented automatic archive guarantee. I rely on disciplined organisation. I clarify which data we still need, which roles should keep access, and whether additional records must be prepared for the office or the tax adviser. For the wider operational context, it helps that Bonzumo connects daily restaurant workflows in one place: Connect the work behind every successful service. But the actual retention decision is still mine as the operator. We verify exports first, assign responsibility, end old accesses in a controlled way, and only then delete or block what no longer has to remain in normal use.

What I tell employees who want access or deletion

If employees want to see their time data, I do not treat that as a special favour. Personal data is generally subject to a right of access and a right to a copy, while the rights of other people still have to be protected. So I explain which time tracking data exists, what it is used for, and in what framework it is retained. By contrast, I do not try to solve everything through blanket consent from staff. In an employment relationship, consent is not automatically considered freely given. The more reliable legal basis is necessity and transparency under section 26 BDSG and Article 15 GDPR.

I am just as clear about deletion requests. I do not erase records immediately if legal retention obligations still apply or if the record is still needed for the proper administration of the employment relationship. Instead, I check whether the purpose still exists, whether relevant periods have expired, and whether data can at least be restricted or removed from routine access. For example, imagine a former food runner asks for deletion of shift data nine months after leaving. I would first review ongoing obligations and any open matters instead of reflexively wiping everything. That makes the answer neither defensive nor arbitrary, but reviewable and fair from both sides.

The practical rule I use in my restaurant

My working rule is therefore simple, but honest: I plan on keeping core time tracking evidence for at least two years, I check longer periods depending on the document and its purpose, and I avoid unnecessary duplicate storage. That rule is not itself a statute, but it turns the verified German legal baseline into workable restaurant practice. Especially with shifts that run past midnight, forgotten clock-outs, or later questions about breaks, I need reliable records for longer than just the next payroll cycle. At the same time, I resist the temptation to keep everything forever just because storage seems cheap and some future analysis might be interesting.

So if you ask me, as a team member, how long your time tracking data is stored, you will not get an evasive answer. In Germany, usually at least two years; in individual cases longer, depending on the type of document and its legal purpose. What I do not promise is an automatic deletion exactly two years later in every case. As the operator, I make sure these periods do not live only in a manager’s memory. They need to be implemented through our process, our responsibilities, and our data maintenance. That keeps time tracking what it should be: fair evidence of work, not an uncontrolled shadow archive.