Dienstzettel not issued: fine under section 7a AVRAG

Section 7a AVRAG provides for a fine if an employer fails to issue a Dienstzettel, a written record of key employment terms, required under section 2(1) to (4). The standard range is 100 to 436 euros. If more than five employees are affected, or the employer was finally penalized under section 7a during the three years before the new offence, the range is 500 to 2,000 euros.

The authority treats the matter as one administrative offence regardless of how many employees are affected. The key issues are whether the documentation duty applied, whether the document was issued, and which statutory penalty range fits the facts.

Section 7a refers to the Dienstzettel under section 2(1) to (4) AVRAG. For a professional club, first establish whether it is the employer in the specific employment relationship and which documentation duty applied. The penalty provision does not turn every disagreement about a contract clause into an administrative offence.

A separate Dienstzettel may not be necessary if the employee received a written employment contract containing every required detail. The Austrian Economic Chamber (WKO) expressly describes this alternative. A contract merely kept in the club’s files does not establish delivery, and an incomplete version may not meet the requirement.

The broader rules for clubs and player contracts are outlined at Clubs and player contracts. This article focuses on the administrative fine for failure to issue the record, not on whether a particular pay or performance clause was validly agreed.

For failing to issue the required Dienstzettel, section 7a sets a fine of 100 to 436 euros. This is a statutory range, not a fixed amount that applies automatically in every case. The district administrative authority must assess the facts.

The higher range is 500 to 2,000 euros. It applies if more than five employees are affected, or if the employer was finally penalized under section 7a during the three years before the new offence. A previous complaint that did not result in a final penalty does not satisfy the second condition.

The number of professional players is relevant evidence, but it does not by itself determine the exact fine. The authority must also check whether any earlier decision became final and whether it falls within the statutory three-year period.

No. Section 7a expressly provides for one administrative offence regardless of the number of affected employees. The missing records are therefore not automatically treated as a separate offence for every player.

The employee count still matters. If more than five employees are affected, the higher penalty range applies. That does not multiply the same section 7a offence into six or more individual fines. A clear list of the affected employment relationships helps keep these two rules distinct.

The club should record which employee received which version and on what date. Only employment relationships covered by the specific allegation should be counted. The authority makes the final assessment on the facts of the case.

Yes, but only if the statutory conditions in section 7a are met. After proceedings have begun, if the district authority establishes that the employer has since demonstrably delivered the Dienstzettel and that culpability is minor, it must refrain from imposing a fine. Later delivery without proof, or without minor culpability, does not automatically satisfy this rule.

The WKO states in its guidance that minor culpability is to be assumed for a first offence. This is the WKO’s application guidance, not an additional element written into section 7a. The later delivery, its timing and the surrounding circumstances still need to be established.

The club should keep a dated copy of the document, the method of transmission and reliable proof of receipt. It also matters whether delivery occurred after the proceedings began. Section 7a does not state a general grace period before that procedural step.

The club should keep the employment contract, amendments, Dienstzettel, transmission or receipt records, and a list of affected employees in one chronology. If an earlier final penalty under section 7a may be relevant, retain the decision and its service details as well.

Players should preserve the contract version received, the Dienstzettel, messages about delivery and the employment start date. For a separate question about pay components, the article Pay components in a written player contract addresses that documentation. It remains separate from the fine for failure to issue a record.

If the district administrative authority has written, follow the service date and any deadline stated in its letter. Do not rely on a period taken from general information. A focused legal review should start with the contract, every version of the Dienstzettel and the authority correspondence.

Is the maximum fine imposed automatically?
No. Section 7a sets a range of 100 to 436 euros and, in defined circumstances, 500 to 2,000 euros. The authority must assess the specific case.

Is a separate fine imposed for every player?
No. Section 7a provides for one administrative offence regardless of the number of affected employees. More than five affected employees do, however, trigger the higher range.

Can a written employment contract replace a Dienstzettel?
Yes, if it was delivered to the employee and contains all required details. The WKO expressly describes this alternative. The actual document and proof of delivery determine whether it applies.

Does delivery after the proceedings begin always prevent a fine?
No. The authority must establish both demonstrable later delivery and minor culpability after the proceedings have begun. Only then does the statute require it to refrain from imposing the fine.

When does the higher penalty range apply?
If more than five employees are affected, or if the employer was finally penalized under section 7a during the three years before the new offence. The authority checks whether an earlier penalty meets those conditions.