In many industries, trial tasks are now standard in the application process. They allow the company to test the applicant's skills without immediately signing a permanent contract. But what happens if the applicant not only completes the task with enthusiasm, but also issues an invoice? One particularly heated case is currently causing a stir. An applicant from the SEO sector had simply invoiced his trial assignment on his own initiative after his application was rejected - a whopping 184 euros. But was that fair? And who is right?

When is a trial assignment really work?

First of all, it is crucial to clarify what "work performance" actually is. According to employment law expert Mareike Curtze, work performance must always be paid for - even if this has not been expressly agreed. This means that if the applicant is given a task that they complete and that is later used by the company, it is perfectly justified for them to demand payment for this work. In the case of the applicant at the SEO agency, the task was relatively small, according to the CEO's assessment: one hour's work, maximum. But what if this one hour represents a real work effort after all? In another scenario, the company could possibly reuse the applicant's work and benefit from it. Then the legal situation becomes even more interesting.

The risk for companies: Termination and more

However, the trial assignment also harbors risks for companies - and not just in the form of poor performance. If an applicant takes on work tasks during a probationary period, this can have legal consequences. For example, the performance of work may lead to a permanent employment relationship. Employers must then not only pay salary, but also comply with the notice periods. To avoid this, companies should ensure that trial assignments only take place within a limited framework - and without work instructions, but merely as a "taster opportunity". A short day during which the applicant observes the company rather than taking action themselves protects against unwanted legal obligations.

Trial tasks: Fair or a rip-off? How applicants and companies protect themselves

One thing is clear: trial assignments are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they can be useful for both the applicant and the employer. But on the other hand, there is a lot of room for misunderstanding and abuse. For the applicant, the question often arises: "Is this really a test, or are they simply taking work for free?" And for the employer: "What if the applicant shows up at the door later with an invoice?"

The fact is that there are always companies that demand trial assignments that are far too broad in scope - in the hope of obtaining valuable work results virtually free of charge. This goes beyond the original purpose of an application process and can clearly be seen as an unfair practice. In such cases, applicants should definitely have the courage to assert their rights. And companies? They should be careful not to put their foot in their legal mouth. Anyone who makes more out of a trial assignment than necessary could find themselves in a complex legal jungle.

The conclusion is simple: a trial assignment is only fair if both sides clearly define from the outset what is expected of the task and what it is worth. But as always, if you end up getting too little for your work, you should speak up and not stop fighting for your rights. And even more importantly, everyone should listen to their gut feeling - especially if the effort involved is not in a fair proportion to the potential benefit.