Switzerland’s 90-Day Notification Procedure for Posted Workers: the 8-Day Rule, 90/90 Tracking and Inspection-Ready Compliance Files

Swiss employers and foreign service providers often underestimate how quickly a short series of assignments in Switzerland can turn into a regulatory problem. Switzerland’s “90-day notification procedure” (Meldeverfahren / procédure d’annonce) is designed to facilitate cross-border services by EU/EFTA providers, but it is not an exemption from labour and social security compliance. It is a structured system with strict lead times, a hard cap on the number of days that can be performed without a Swiss work permit, and a well-developed inspection practice under Swiss posted worker enforcement.

This article is designed for EU/EFTA and UK service providers. It explains how the 8-day rule works in practice, how the 90 days are counted and tracked, when you move from notification to a permit route, and what a robust compliance file should contain so that your employees can withstand an on-site inspection without disruption.

1. What the Swiss 90-day notification procedure actually is (and what it is not)

In Swiss practice, the 90-day notification procedure is a simplified pre-notification system for certain short-term work performed in Switzerland by foreign service providers (and in some cases by self-employed service providers). It enables work to begin without going through the ordinary Swiss work permit process, provided that the activity falls within the scope of the regime, all notifications are submitted correctly and in time, and the work performed in Switzerland does not exceed the applicable day limits.

Two points matter operationally. First, “notification” does not mean “no rules”. Posted workers in Switzerland remain subject to Swiss minimum working and wage conditions in the relevant sector and region, and to enforcement by cantonal and sectoral control bodies. Secondly, the notification procedure is not an all-purpose tool for any type of work. If the activity is not eligible, if the person is not within scope (for example, depending on nationality and the legal basis on which they are working), or if the day limits are exceeded, a Swiss work authorisation route applies.

EU/EFTA providers are the classic users of the notification procedure because it is tied to Switzerland’s framework for cross-border services with the EU/EFTA states. UK businesses can still provide services into Switzerland, but they should not assume the EU/EFTA notification model applies in the same way post-Brexit. In practice, UK service providers frequently need to assess whether the Swiss assignment must be structured through a Swiss permit (often via a Swiss host entity, a Swiss client engagement with the right work authorisation, or another lawful route), rather than relying on an EU/EFTA-style notification.

2. The 8-day rule: lead time, exceptions, and how it is enforced

A core operational constraint is Switzerland’s “8-day rule”. As a general rule, the notification must be submitted at least eight days before work starts in Switzerland. This is not a guideline. In many cantons, late notifications can lead to enforcement measures ranging from being stopped from working (in practical terms, being asked to cease the activity) through to administrative sanctions against the service provider. A late notification also tends to increase the likelihood of a closer inspection, particularly in higher-risk sectors.

The biggest compliance mistake is to treat “travel date” as the key date. The legally relevant date is when the person begins work in Switzerland. If a worker enters Switzerland on Sunday and starts on Monday, Monday is usually day one of work for notification purposes, but the notification lead time is counted backwards from the start of work, not from entry. Conversely, if the person enters and performs any work activity on day one (including installation, commissioning, on-site testing, or customer-facing activity that goes beyond pure business meetings), the work start date may be the entry date.

There are limited exceptions in practice where urgent work can be notified with a shorter lead time (for example, certain emergency repairs). These are interpreted narrowly by the authorities and should be treated as exceptions requiring careful documentation of the urgency and the nature of the work. If you are relying on an exception, the compliance file should show why the assignment could not reasonably be planned within the normal lead time and why the activity falls within the exception as applied in the canton concerned.

Operationally, the best discipline is to build the 8-day lead time into the contracting and mobilisation process: a signed assignment letter, defined scope of work, confirmed site address, and confirmed dates should exist before travel is booked, not after.

3. How the 90 days are counted: “90/90” tracking in real assignments

The “90 days” are not a general “90 days in Switzerland as a visitor” concept. They are a work-day allowance within the notification framework, allocated per person and per company, and they must be tracked precisely. In many real-world projects, the practical issue is not a single long posting but repeated short trips: two days here, three days there, a week for commissioning, another week for warranty work. Without a disciplined tracker, businesses can drift over the cap without noticing.

For day counting, the key operational principle is that any day on which work is performed in Switzerland typically counts as a day, even if it is only part of the day. Arrival in the morning and work in the afternoon will usually count; a day spent entirely outside Switzerland will not. Weekends and rest days may or may not count depending on whether work is performed. The conservative compliance approach is to treat any day with on-site work, travel between Swiss work sites while “on assignment”, or other work activity physically carried out in Switzerland as a countable day, and to document days that are genuinely non-working.

“90/90 tracking” is often used as shorthand by businesses to mean “do not exceed 90 notified work days in the relevant reference period”. In practice, companies need an internal tracker that is granular enough to withstand an inspection: it should reconcile notification confirmations, travel records (where appropriate), and timesheets. Where workers are in Switzerland for mixed purposes (for example, a project meeting plus later on-site work), your internal classification should be consistent and evidenced, because inconsistencies between notifications and actual presence are a common trigger for enforcement follow-up.

Where the 90-day cap is close, planning becomes a legal question, not merely operational. If an assignment will push a worker over the allowable notified days, the company should assess Swiss permit options in advance and build the permit lead time into the project plan. Waiting until the cap is reached is rarely workable, because work authorisation processing can take time and some cantons will not tolerate “bridging” work performed without the correct status.

4. When notification is not enough: common permit triggers for EU/EFTA and UK providers

The notification procedure is not designed to cover all work patterns. The most common triggers for moving to a permit route are exceeding the available notified days, having the wrong legal basis for the worker’s nationality, or performing an activity that cannot lawfully be carried out under notification.

For EU/EFTA nationals, the transition point is typically the exhaustion of the notified-day allowance or a move from a genuinely temporary cross-border service into something that looks like local employment in Switzerland (for example, being embedded long-term in a Swiss client’s organisation, taking instructions like an employee, or being functionally integrated into Swiss operations). Even where a formal employment relationship remains abroad, Swiss authorities look at the real substance of the arrangement when deciding whether the correct route has been used.

For UK nationals and UK service providers, a separate caution applies. UK nationals no longer benefit from EU free movement. That does not mean every UK visit requires a Swiss work permit, but it does mean the legal basis for working in Switzerland needs to be checked carefully. Some activities may fall within business visitor-type parameters (meetings, negotiations) while hands-on productive work at a Swiss site often triggers work authorisation requirements. A UK provider should therefore not build a Swiss delivery model around the assumption that the EU/EFTA 90-day notification procedure will be available in the same way.

In both EU/EFTA and UK scenarios, sector-specific enforcement is a real practical constraint. Construction, finishing trades, industrial assembly, cleaning, security, hospitality, logistics and certain personal services are typically subject to intensive checks. In such sectors, your compliance file is not a “nice to have”; it is what keeps a site visit from becoming an interruption, a stop-work order, or a sanctions process.

5. Inspection-ready compliance files: what to keep ready and why it matters

Swiss posted worker enforcement is document-driven. Inspectors typically want to confirm (i) that the worker is lawfully notified or authorised, (ii) that social security coverage is correctly maintained, and (iii) that Swiss minimum wage and working condition rules are respected. An effective compliance file is therefore one that allows you to answer those three questions immediately and coherently.

A practical compliance file for each worker and assignment will usually include proof of social security coverage. For EU/EFTA postings, that is typically an A1 certificate confirming continued coverage in the home system. For UK postings, the equivalent certificate of coverage depends on the applicable coordination framework and the worker’s circumstances; in practice, you should ensure you hold the correct CoC documentation for the period and country involved, and that it matches the dates and nature of the Swiss work. Inspectors often focus on date alignment: an A1/CoC that covers a different period to the actual Swiss activity, or that was applied for too late, is a common weakness.

It is also prudent to include the notification confirmation (or permit approval where applicable), together with a clear assignment letter. The assignment letter should identify the employer, the worker, the Swiss client or receiving entity, the Swiss work site address(es), the precise dates, and a description of the services to be performed. Vague descriptions can cause problems, especially if the on-site activity looks like a different trade from the one declared. A well-drafted assignment letter also helps demonstrate that the arrangement is a service provision rather than a local Swiss hire.

Wage and working time documentation is equally central. Switzerland enforces minimum wage conditions through a combination of statutory rules and, in many sectors, collective labour agreements (CLAs) and standard employment contracts. A service provider should be in a position to show what the worker is paid, how the pay relates to the Swiss minimum applicable to the place and activity, and what allowances or per diems are being treated as expenses rather than wages. Inspectors may request payslips, payroll summaries, bank payment evidence, and an explanation of how the hourly rate has been calculated. Where the worker remains on a home-country salary structure, a mapping exercise to the Swiss minimum is often needed to avoid the argument that the posted worker is underpaid under Swiss rules.

Timesheets and attendance records are the final pillar. They should show the days worked in Switzerland, the hours worked, and the location or project. This is not only relevant to wage compliance; it is also what allows you to defend your 90-day tracking. Inconsistencies between notified periods and timesheets are frequently treated as an indicator of broader non-compliance, even where the underlying issue is administrative rather than substantive.

A compact way to think about the compliance file is that it should answer, without improvisation on site, the following: who the worker is, why they are in Switzerland, what authorisation route applies, how social security is covered, what wage rules apply and how they are met, and what the worker actually did and when.

6. Practical risk points that cause failures in real projects

Several recurring operational patterns create avoidable exposure.

The first is last-minute mobilisation. When a client asks for an engineer “tomorrow”, businesses sometimes send the person and attempt to notify later. This is precisely the scenario in which the 8-day rule becomes decisive, and where “urgent work” arguments are often unconvincing unless the facts genuinely support them.

The second is fragmented planning across business units. Sales agrees a scope; delivery changes the personnel; the worker travels under a different project code; HR issues an A1 covering different dates; and the compliance team is unaware of the Swiss element. Switzerland’s enforcement approach rewards coherent documentation. If your files tell conflicting stories, the risk is not only a finding on that visit but heightened scrutiny on future assignments.

The third is misunderstanding what counts as work. A person who attends meetings may be a business visitor in many contexts, but once they start installing, repairing, training on equipment in a hands-on way, or performing operational tasks at a Swiss site, the activity can shift into “work” that needs notification or a permit. Businesses should classify activities conservatively and align that classification across notifications, client communications, and internal timesheets.

The fourth is wage compliance treated as an afterthought. Even sophisticated companies sometimes assume that paying a “good” foreign salary is enough. In Switzerland, compliance is about meeting the applicable Swiss minimum conditions for the sector and region and being able to demonstrate it in a way inspectors accept.

Conclusion: building a defensible Swiss posted worker process

For EU/EFTA service providers, the 90-day notification procedure is a valuable operational tool, but it only works if treated as a compliance system rather than a travel formality. The 8-day rule needs to be built into project mobilisation, and 90-day usage needs disciplined per-person tracking that reconciles notifications with actual work performed. For UK service providers, the key is to avoid assuming that EU/EFTA notification logic automatically applies, and to assess early whether the Swiss activity requires a permit route.

Across all nationalities, inspection outcomes are strongly influenced by preparedness. An inspection-ready compliance file - covering authorisation, social security (A1/CoC), wages and working time evidence, and a clear assignment narrative - does not merely reduce sanction risk. It reduces the operational risk of disruption on site and provides a defensible record if the authorities ask questions later.

Contact Our Immigration Lawyers In Switzerland

If you are planning to post workers to Switzerland, need to confirm whether the 90-day notification procedure is available for your team, or are approaching the day limit and considering permit options, tailored advice can help you structure assignments lawfully and prepare inspection-ready documentation. To arrange an initial consultation meeting, contact Richmond Chambers Switzerland by telephone on +41 21 588 07 70 or complete an enquiry form.