Employee screening where a concrete suspicion exists
Almost every enquiry on this subject opens with a sentence like “I don’t want to accuse anyone, but…”. That reluctance is right. Screening is not a tool for an uneasy feeling. It is a tool for the situation where a suspicion is concrete and continues to cost money for as long as it stays unresolved.
The three most common cases
Feigned incapacity for work. The classic case, and the one with the clearest legal position. The evidentiary value of a medical certificate is undermined where it is documented that, during the sick leave, the employee pursued an activity incompatible with the stated condition.
Undisclosed secondary employment. Particularly relevant where it is with a competitor or measurably impairs performance in the primary role.
Breach of a non-compete obligation. Usually after departure — the former employee takes clients or works for a direct competitor despite a contractual restriction.
What we do and what we do not
We document what is observable in public space: movements, locations, activities, contacts. We do not fit GPS trackers to vehicles, do not access private communications and do not enter dwellings. This is not caution but necessity: unlawfully obtained findings are as a rule inadmissible before a German labour court. You would have gained nothing and acquired a case against yourself.
Proportionality
Screening is permissible only where milder means have been exhausted and the suspicion rests on concrete indications. We test this with you before accepting the assignment — and decline where the conditions are not met. An assignment that later harms you is of no use to us.
Outcome
A report giving date, time, location, observation and photographic material, prepared for submission to counsel or the court. Supplemented where useful by OSINT research into publicly available information.
When screening is permissible — and when it is not
Most enquiries on this subject open with a sentence like “I do not want to accuse anyone, but…”. That reticence is right. Screening employees is not a routine control instrument; it is a response to a concrete, justifiable suspicion.
It is permissible where objective indications exist and milder measures have been exhausted — repeated incapacity following a conspicuous pattern, indications of competing secondary employment, suspicion of a breach of a non-compete clause. Continuous observation without cause is not permissible. We examine that question before every assignment and decline where the grounds do not hold.
How the findings are established
Observation takes place exclusively in public space and only on the days the question requires. In practice that is rarely more than two to four days in the field. We document what was actually visible — not what might be concluded from it. That distinction is what makes the report hold up later.
What we do not do: enter homes, fit tracking devices to vehicles, read messages, obtain health data. That is a criminal offence and would render the result useless to you.
The result and what it gives you
You receive documentation that stands up before a labour court: times, locations, findings, photographic evidence. If it confirms the suspicion, you have a sound basis for a warning, a dismissal or a claim. If it does not, you know that too — and can clear the air before it hardens into a lasting conflict.
Before hiring, the right instrument is a background check, not screening. Where the issue is shrinkage rather than working time, the route runs through employee theft.
What usually brings clients to us
First and foremost, repeated incapacity following a recognisable pattern: always after a rejected holiday request, always on a Friday or Monday, always the same length. Second, suspicion of competing secondary employment, often after a customer mentions in passing that they saw the employee elsewhere.
Third, breaches of a contractual non-compete clause after an employee leaves. Here the matter is usually no longer the person but the protection of the customer base.
What determines the scope
Scope follows the number of days in the field, whether observation is required in several places at once, and whether you need the documentation for a formal warning or for court proceedings — the required depth of evidence differs.
Before every assignment we examine whether the grounds hold legally, and we decline where they do not. You receive the price before the assignment begins.
Frequently asked questions
Is surveillance alone sufficient grounds for dismissal?
It provides the factual basis. Whether a dismissal holds is assessed by your lawyer on the overall picture.
Will the employee find out?
Not during the investigation. After it concludes, information obligations may arise under the GDPR; timing and scope are determined by your lawyer.
What does screening cost?
It depends on duration and location. Price on request.