Clocking in with your personal phone

It is Consultation No. 15,843 of DTRH’s Office of the Labor Prosecutor, dated 17 April 2026: the official guidance on whether an employer may require an employee to use their personal mobile phone — and its geolocation — to record attendance and working time.

It serves any private-sector employee whose employer asks them to clock in with their personal phone or keep geolocation active, and any employer considering such a system. The consultation came from employees of a security company, but the analysis applies generally to attendance recording under Act 379 of 1948.

• For the employer: keeping the attendance and payroll records Act 379 of 1948 and Article XVI of Regulation No. 9017 require — full name, position, regular and overtime hours per day, weekly totals, rate and total compensation.Verified against the official source
• For the employer: having an alternative attendance-recording method available, because implementing a valid system is their responsibility and not the worker’s.Verified against the official source
• If the device is not employer-provided: the express consent of the phone’s owner, because many people do not have the phone in their own name.Verified against the official source

• The employer’s written policy on the app’s use, if it exists: the opinion recommends there be one and details what it should contain.
• Whatever documents your situation if you are going to raise it: the instruction you were given, whether there was a stipend or reimbursement, and what you were asked to enable on the phone.

1. 1

   Step 1: First: it is not banned, but it is not free

   The Labor Prosecutor’s conclusion is explicit: using a worker’s personal mobile phone to record attendance is not, in itself, an absolutely prohibited practice, but it is not free of obligations and conditions either, and these claims must be evaluated case by case. That is, neither "it is illegal, full stop" nor "the employer can do as it pleases": it depends on how it is set up.

2. 2

   Step 2: Refusing is neither a breach nor grounds for discipline

   This is the sentence to keep at hand: "if a worker refuses to use their personal phone to record their attendance, that action by itself does not constitute a breach of the applicable rules, nor does a disciplinary measure lie for their refusal". The reason the Prosecutor gives is legal logic, not sympathy: the responsibility for implementing a valid attendance-recording system is the employer’s.

3. 3

   Step 3: The employer must have another route

   The opinion says it plainly: the employer must have available an alternative method complying with Act 379 of 1948 and its regulation in force. And it adds the criterion that decides many cases: if there is a less privacy-invasive alternative for recording attendance or working time, that is the one to be chosen.

4. 4

   Step 4: Permanent geolocation is disproportionate

   On the point that bothers people most, the Prosecutor is direct: requiring permanent geolocation tracking on a worker’s personal device merely to record attendance is disproportionate. Clocking in and out does not require knowing where you are all day.

5. 5

   Step 5: Paying for your data does not buy tracking

   One might think a stipend settles everything, and the opinion heads that off: paying a stipend to cover data costs does not justify the employer having, for example, a right to unlimited geolocation tracking, above all outside working hours, much less access — or requests for access — to the camera, images or emails, to name some private information that may be stored on a worker’s personal phone.

6. 6

   Step 6: The phone that is not in your name

   The opinion makes a very local observation: in Puerto Rico many people do not have their mobile phones in their own name, because they were bought when the person was a minor or belong to a family plan. That is why it says it is very important for the employer to have the express consent of the device’s owner when the phone is not employer-provided.

7. 7

   Step 7: The practical questions the employer must answer

   The Prosecutor asks them out loud and they are good ones to take into a meeting: what happens if the phone breaks down or the worker’s model does not support the app? Must the worker buy equipment to run the employer’s app? What options exist in weather events such as hurricanes or earthquakes when telecommunications are affected, as happened with Hurricane María or the southern earthquakes? An attendance system with no answer to that is not complete.

8. 8

   Step 8: What the opinion recommends to employers

   To anyone already using or considering these apps, the Prosecutor recommends a formal written policy explaining in detail employees’ rights, the use and handling of location data, information-security and privacy guarantees, who will have access to the information collected, what would happen in a security breach and the steps to remedy it, and express informed consent. And that it provide alternative means for employees to record their attendance.

9. 9

   Step 9: Where to raise it

   The consultation reached the Prosecutor because the Bureau of Labor Standards’ area offices received calls from employees asking for guidance. That is the route: DTRH’s Bureau of Labor Standards handles matters of working time and attendance recording. The consultation itself certifies that, at the time, there were no complaints or active cases on the situation: they were requests for guidance.

At the Bureau of Labor Standards of the Department of Labor and Human Resources, where the calls that prompted this consultation arrived and which handles matters of working time and attendance recording.

• Installing the app believing refusal is insubordination: the opinion says refusal by itself is neither a breach nor grounds for discipline.
• Accepting permanent geolocation because "it is for the punch clock": the Prosecutor deems it disproportionate for that purpose alone.
• Believing a data stipend authorises tracking outside working hours or access to the camera and emails.
• Letting the employer treat the device as its own when the phone is in someone else’s name.
• Buying a new phone to run the employer’s app: the alternative system is the employer’s responsibility.
• Assuming the answer is the same in every case, when the opinion itself says these claims are evaluated case by case.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Departamento del Trabajo y Recursos Humanos (DTRH)

  Departamento del Trabajo

  www.trabajo.pr.gov

• Department of Labor and Human Resources — Office of the Labor Prosecutor opinions

  dtrh

  www.trabajo.pr.gov