HR Management
Personalwolke
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Workflow EDV GmbH · www.personalwolke.at
Compare with HRworks → Compare with Kenjo → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Personalwolke, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
Digital personnel file & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The system of record: employee master data, the digital personnel file, org structure, custom fields, and whether history is kept rather than overwritten.
0 — A contact list with job titles; no document storage, no org structure, no history — changes overwrite what was there.
3 — Employee records with document upload, but a flat structure: no org chart, few or no custom fields, and no dated history of contract or salary changes.
5 — Digital personnel file with structured document types, an org chart, custom fields, and change history on the core employment fields.
8 — Complete record: versioned contract and compensation history with effective dates, document templates with e-signature, org structure supporting multiple entities and cost centres, and granular field-level permissions.
10 — The file is the single source of truth an auditor could work from: full effective-dated history on every field, retention rules per document type, delegated administration per entity, and export that reproduces the record intact.
The People Lead
A 'digitale Personalakte' with payslip storage, salary reporting and country standards is named, but nothing evidences an org chart, custom fields, or any dated history of contract or salary changes — and history is the whole point of replacing eleven spreadsheets. By the anchors, that silence pins this to the flat-file-with-documents level, not the structured-file level. 1 2
The Payroll Officer
"Digitale Personalakte" and "Personalverwaltung" are listed as headline features, so a file exists, but the evidence says nothing about org structure, custom fields, or dated history of contract or salary changes — I close months on effective-dated changes, and there is no evidence a change is kept rather than overwritten. That is a flat file with documents, nothing more. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A 'digitale Personalakte' and Personalverwaltung are named, but the evidence says nothing about org structure, custom fields, or dated change history on contract and salary — I cannot co-determine a file whose audit trail and field permissions are undocumented. Vacation aliquotation for entry, part-time and exit hints at some date awareness, but that is entitlement maths, not record history. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
A digitale Personalakte, Personalverwaltung and a digital payslip/reporting feature are confirmed, but the evidence is silent on org structure, custom fields, effective-dated change history and field-level permissions — I cannot verify whether a contract or salary change overwrites what was there. Excel/PDF export exists but nothing shows the export reproduces the record intact. 1 2
The IT Integrator
A 'Digitale Personalakte' with Personalverwaltung and Excel/PDF export is confirmed, but the evidence is silent on org structure, custom fields, dated contract/salary history, e-signature and field-level permissions — that is a flat file, not a system of record. And since the only data access on evidence is a webservice sold as an optional add-on, I have no way to treat this file as the identity source my systems sync from. 1 2
The Skeptic
The personnel file is four words on a feature list — "Digitale Personalakte, Personalverwaltung" — with "über 60 smarte Features" standing in for any detail. No org chart, no custom fields, no change history, no document types, no field-level permissions are so much as named; the evidence confirms records exist and nothing about their structure. That is the flat-file anchor, generously read. 1
Payroll handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the month closes cleanly into payroll — DATEV, Lohn und Gehalt, an in-house system or an external tax adviser — and how much of that is automated rather than re-typed.
0 — No payroll path stated at all; whatever leaves the system leaves as a spreadsheet somebody retypes.
3 — Generic CSV export said to be usable for payroll, with no named payroll system, no defined format and no handling of mid-month changes.
5 — A named payroll integration or a documented export format for at least one major system (e.g. DATEV LODAS/Lohn und Gehalt), covering the recurring monthly fields.
8 — Certified or vendor-maintained integration with a named payroll provider, covering variable pay, absences and mid-month joiners and leavers, with a documented pre-payroll check.
10 — Payroll is a first-class part of the product: maintained bidirectional integrations with several named systems, an auditable approval and lock step before transmission, retro-accounting for backdated changes, and the tax adviser given their own access.
The People Lead
There is an optional 'Schnittstelle Lohn/Gehalt', 'vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung' in the Time module and a payroll connection from travel expenses, so a path exists — but no named payroll system, no documented format, and nothing on mid-month joiners/leavers or a pre-payroll check. That sits between the anonymous-export anchor and the named-integration anchor, and I won't gamble my December close on an unspecified interface. 2 1
The Payroll Officer
A payroll path is stated — "Schnittstelle Lohn/Gehalt" (optional in three plans), "vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung", and travel expenses feeding "Lohnverrechnungsanbindung" — which is more than a generic CSV confession. But no payroll system is named, no format is documented, and mid-month joiners/leavers, variable pay and retro-accounting are never mentioned, so it stays below the named-integration tier. 2 1
The Works Council Advocate
A 'Schnittstelle Lohn/Gehalt' exists as an option and 'vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung' plus the travel module's Lohnverrechnungsanbindung show a handoff is intended — but no payroll system is named anywhere, no format is defined, and mid-month joiners/leavers and a pre-payroll check are unaddressed. That is above a bare CSV export, below a named integration. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
A 'Schnittstelle Lohn/Gehalt' is offered as an option and 'vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung' plus 'Lohnverrechnungsanbindung' are claimed, but no payroll system is named, no format is documented, and there is nothing on mid-month joiners/leavers or a pre-payroll check. That is a re-typing risk dressed as a handoff. 2 1
The IT Integrator
A 'Schnittstelle Lohn/Gehalt' exists as an optional module and the site claims 'vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung' plus a travel-expense payroll hookup, but no payroll system is named, no export format is documented, and mid-month joiners/leavers and pre-payroll checks are absent. I can't wire a month-end handoff on an interface that has a name and nothing else. 2 1
The Skeptic
"Schnittstelle Lohn/Gehalt optional" — an unnamed interface, marked optional in every tier, plus "vorbereitende Lohnabrechnung" and the travel module's "Lohnverrechnungsanbindung". No named payroll system (no DATEV, no BMD, nothing), no defined format, no mid-month joiner/leaver handling, no pre-payroll check; and even this thin handoff is an add-on line. That is the generic-interface anchor, word for word. 2 1
Absence & working-time
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Vacation, sickness and working-time recording — including whether the product meets the German recording duty (BAG 2022, ArbZG) rather than merely offering a timer.
0 — No absence or time handling; both live in a spreadsheet elsewhere.
3 — Vacation requests with an approval step, but entitlement is manual, carry-over is not handled and there is no working-time recording.
5 — Automatic entitlement and carry-over, sickness recording, an absence calendar, and basic working-time capture with a report per employee.
8 — Configurable per country and contract: pro-rata entitlement, public-holiday calendars per location, break and rest-period rules, overtime accounts, and an export the employer can hand to a labour inspection.
10 — Working-time recording built as a legal obligation rather than a feature: tamper-evident records, documented compliance with the ArbZG recording duty, works-council-configurable monitoring limits, and shift or on-call models handled without add-ons.
The People Lead
This is the product's spine: vacation aliquoting for entry, part-time, exit and Karenz, absence workflows and notifications, capture by web, app and terminal, and 'komplexe Zeitwirtschaft inkl. Berechnung' with hardware support. It falls short of the higher anchor because sickness recording, carry-over, per-location holiday calendars, break/overtime rules and anything inspection-ready or tamper-evident are entirely unevidenced. 2 1
The Payroll Officer
Vacation management with aliquotation explicitly covering Eintritt, Teilzeit, Austritt and Karenz is exactly the proration I need for mid-month leavers, and there is start/stop capture, terminal hardware and "komplexe Zeitwirtschaft inkl. Berechnung" with reports. But carry-over, sickness, holiday calendars and any word on ArbZG recording duty or tamper-evidence are absent, so it does not reach the legal-obligation tier. 2 1
The Works Council Advocate
Vacation management in days and hours with proration for Eintritt, Teilzeit, Austritt and Karenz, approval workflows, and 'komplexe Zeitwirtschaft inkl. Berechnung' with terminal support go beyond the basics. But the evidence is silent on break and rest-period rules, overtime accounts, tamper-evidence and — my question — any works-council-configurable monitoring limits; a start/stop function is not documented compliance with the BAG/ArbZG recording duty, and live project-time bookings raise exactly the monitoring questions nobody answered. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
Working-time capture via start/stop, web/app and terminals is real, and Urlaubsaliquotierung for entry, part-time, exit and Karenz plus 'komplexe Zeitwirtschaft inkl. Berechnung' gives genuine depth. But nothing documents the ArbZG recording duty, tamper-evident records, holiday calendars, overtime accounts or works-council-configurable limits — the compliance posture around the recorded data is unevidenced. 2 1
The IT Integrator
Working-time capture is real — start/stop in Base, complex time calculation and terminals in Professional, web and app — and vacation runs in days and hours with pro-rating for entry, part-time, exit and parental leave. But nothing evidences sickness recording, carry-over, per-location holiday calendars, rest-period rules or tamper-evidence, so the German recording duty side of it is a claim, not a documented capability. 2 1
The Skeptic
The one area with genuine specificity: vacation in days and hours with pro-rata entitlement for entry, part-time, exit and Karenz, start/stop capture, "komplexe Zeitwirtschaft inkl. Berechnung", terminal hardware and digital approval workflows. But the compliance half is entirely silent — no holiday calendars per location, no break/rest rules, no overtime accounts, no tamper-evidence, not one word on the ArbZG/BAG recording duty — so "inkl. Berechnung" stays marketing fog. Above the 5 anchor for proration and hardware, well short of 8. 2 1
Recruiting & onboarding
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The join path — vacancy to signed contract to a person who has an account, equipment and a plan on day one.
0 — Neither applicant tracking nor onboarding exists; hiring happens in a shared inbox.
3 — A basic applicant list with statuses, or an onboarding checklist — one of the two, without the handover between them.
5 — Applicant tracking with a careers page, structured stages and rejection handling, plus a checklist-driven onboarding that carries the hired candidate over into an employee record without re-entry.
8 — Multi-posting to named job boards, interview scheduling and scorecards, GDPR-conscious applicant retention and deletion, e-signed contracts, and onboarding that triggers tasks in IT and payroll.
10 — The whole join is one governed flow: approval-gated requisitions with budget, structured and bias-conscious evaluation, automated applicant deletion at the stated deadline, and provisioning driven from the record so day one needs no HR intervention.
The People Lead
The published module list is Time, Travel, Project Time and HR-Expert — no applicant tracking, no onboarding, not even a checklist. Absence of the module in the evidence is the capability's absence; hiring stays in the shared inbox. 1
The Payroll Officer
The module list is Time, Travel, Project Time and HR-Expert, and of the "über 60 smarte Features" not one is applicant tracking or onboarding — the evidence is silent on the entire join path. Hiring stays in the shared inbox. 1
The Works Council Advocate
Nothing: the module list is Time, Travel, Project Time and HR-Expert, and nowhere in the evidence is there an applicant list, a careers page, an onboarding checklist or any trace of a join path. Hiring evidently lives outside this product. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The module list is Time, Travel, Project Time and HR-Expert; nothing evidences applicant tracking or onboarding, and therefore nothing on the automated applicant deletion at a stated deadline my office requires. Silence on the join path is a finding, not a neutral. 1
The IT Integrator
The complete feature inventory contains no vacancy, applicant-tracking, contract or onboarding capability of any kind — hiring lives in a shared inbox. And nothing here provisions the day-one account, no SCIM, no task trigger into IT, which for me is the entire measure of onboarding. 1 2
The Skeptic
The module list is Time, Travel, Project Time and HR-Expert — no applicant tracking, no onboarding, no e-signature, no careers page anywhere in the evidence. 1
Employee data protection & co-determination
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the product handles the most sensitive personal data a company holds — retention, deletion, role separation, subject rights — and whether it can pass a works council (BetrVG §87) rather than merely a procurement checklist.
0 — No stated retention or deletion handling, no role model beyond admin-or-not, and no DPA offered on the site.
3 — A DPA exists on request and roles are coarse; retention and deletion are described as something the customer arranges themselves.
5 — A signable DPA is published, roles are configurable per module, applicant and employee retention periods are stated, and deletion can be executed rather than only promised.
8 — Field-level access control with an audit log of who read what, configurable retention per data category with automatic deletion, documented subject-rights support, and monitoring or analytics features that can be switched off for co-determination.
10 — Built for the works council to say yes: published processing documentation and subprocessor list, per-entity data separation, tamper-evident audit trail, evaluation and behavioural-analysis features off by default with their scope documented, and a data-protection impact assessment the customer can build on.
The People Lead
A DPA is available on request, GDPR conformity is claimed, and SSL plus two-factor authentication are stated — but there is no evidenced role model, no retention periods, no deletion mechanics and no audit of who read what. That is exactly the DPA-on-request-with-the-rest-arranged-yourself anchor, and it would not survive a first conversation with a works council on the monitoring-heavy time module. 4 2 1
The Payroll Officer
A DPA is available on request, GDPR conformity is claimed, and the security story is SSL plus 2FA — but no retention periods, no executable deletion, no audit log, no role granularity, and the only subprocessors named are the website's analytics tools. That is the DPA-on-request tier and no further. 2 4 1
The Works Council Advocate
The DPA is available 'auf Anfrage' only — precisely the anchor-3 situation — and beyond SSL and Google-Authenticator 2FA the evidence offers no role model, no retention or deletion rules, no audit log of who read what, and no way shown to switch monitoring or reporting features off. That the vendor's own privacy policy runs Hotjar for 'Verhaltensdaten' with pseudonymised user profiles tells me behaviour analysis is in their culture even if it is not in the product. 2 4 1
The Data Protection Officer
The DPA exists only 'auf Anfrage' — an unpublished DPA is a finding by my standard — and the evidence shows no retention periods, no executable deletion, no role model beyond none stated, no audit log of who read what; only SSL transmission and 2FA as technical basics. That the vendor's own site runs Hotjar for behavioural analysis does not encourage me about analytics habits. 4 2 1
The IT Integrator
The only governance artifact is a substantive DPA available on request specifying processing and the TOMs, backed by SSL transport and Google-Authenticator 2FA — no role model beyond unstated, no retention periods, no deletion execution, no audit log of who read what. No SSO/SAML or SCIM is evidenced anywhere, and the GDPR-conformance line is a sticker, not documentation. 4 2 1
The Skeptic
A DPA exists "auf Anfrage" — literally the on-request anchor — and beyond a blanket "erfüllt alle Anforderungen der EU-DSGVO" plus SSL and 2FA, governance is undocumented: no retention periods, no deletion mechanics, no role model, no audit log, no subject-rights process. Telling detail: the vendor's own site runs Hotjar for "Verhaltensdaten, pseudonymisiertes Nutzerprofil", and nothing says product-side analytics can be switched off for a works council. 4 1 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are, and whether the answer is documented rather than assumed. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as the buyer would weigh it.
0 — US-headquartered vendor, US contracting entity, hosting region unstated or US, subprocessors not named.
3 — EU hosting is offered as an option but the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is incomplete or absent.
5 — EU hosting stated as standard and an EU contracting entity, but the subprocessor chain includes non-EU providers without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, an EU contracting entity, the full subprocessor list published, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, contracting entity, hosting and every subprocessor in the EU, certification of the data centres published, and an on-premises or private-cloud option for buyers who need it.
The People Lead
The server is stated to sit in Austria within the EU and the imprint shows an Austrian GmbH with a Firmenbuch number, which is better than EU-as-an-option. But the only subprocessors named anywhere are website analytics (Hotjar, Matomo), the product's own processing chain is absent, and even the contracting jurisdiction was flagged as unconfirmed — a published chain is what I'd need to move above the middle. 4 3
The Payroll Officer
The server is stated to be in Österreich and the imprint shows an Austrian Firmenbuch entry, VAT ID and Vienna address, so as a buyer I read a genuinely EU vendor. But the data-centre provider is unnamed and the product's own subprocessor chain is unpublished — the pipeline's unknowns are real — which keeps it one tier down. 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
An Austrian GmbH in the Firmenbuch and a server 'in Österreich und damit innerhalb der EU' are genuinely solid and better than most. But the subprocessor disclosure stops at two website analytics tools, names no data-centre provider or product-side processor chain, and leaves Hotjar in the chain without an explained safeguard — for a §87 assessment I cannot verify where personnel data actually flows, so this sits just below the standard baseline. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The server stands in Austria within the EU and the imprint names an Austrian Firmenbuch entity, but that entity (Workflow HR Systems GmbH) does not match the vendor of record (Workflow EDV GmbH), leaving the contracting party unclear. More importantly, no product subprocessor list is published at all — I cannot tell whose hands the data passes through, and website analytics tools are the only processors named. 4 3
The IT Integrator
Hosting is stated as Austria, EU, and the imprint is an Austrian GmbH with Firmenbuch number and UID, which I genuinely weigh. But no data-centre or product subprocessor is named — the published list covers only the marketing site's Hotjar and Matomo — and the vendor record says 'Workflow EDV GmbH' while the imprint says 'Workflow HR Systems GmbH', so I cannot even confirm who I would be contracting with. Missing evidence here is information, not a pass. 3 4
The Skeptic
Hosting is stated plainly as Austria, inside the EU, and the imprint gives a full Austrian identity (Firmenbuch FN 188579 y, ATU VAT, Vienna address) — but the contracting name shifts between Workflow EDV GmbH and Workflow HR Systems GmbH, so I cannot confirm who I would actually be signing with. No data-centre provider named, no product subprocessor list (only website analytics appear), which parks this between the 3 and 5 anchors. 3 4
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether an HR lead can compute the real annual invoice for their headcount — including the modules they actually need — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price per employee exists, but the modules most buyers need are unpriced, or a minimum headcount, setup fee or mandatory onboarding package is not stated publicly.
5 — Per-employee prices are public for the main tiers with the billing period stated, but at least one commonly needed module (payroll, time, recruiting) hides in an unpriced bundle.
8 — Every tier and module priced publicly with per-employee maths, billing period, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom enterprise work lacks a number.
10 — Complete price computability: a calculator or table that produces the annual invoice for a given headcount and module selection, including setup, minimums and renewal terms.
The People Lead
The pricing page describes a model — monthly rent per employee per module, a one-time setup fee, multi-module and loyalty discounts, 30-day trial — but not a single euro figure, so I cannot compute the annual invoice for 400 people from public pages. Only the model description and free trial keep this above the nothing-published anchor. 2 1
The Payroll Officer
The pricing page describes the model — "Monatliche Miete auf Basis Mitarbeiteranzahl & Module", a one-time setup fee, module and loyalty discounts, 30-day trial — but not a single euro figure appears anywhere on the evidence. No HR lead can compute an annual invoice from this; it is a sales conversation dressed as a price page. 2 1
The Works Council Advocate
The pricing page states a model — module- and user-based monthly rent, a one-time setup fee, multi-module and loyalty discounts, 30-day trial — but not a single euro figure for any tier or module, and the setup fee amount is unstated. No HR lead can compute the annual invoice from these pages; the price is a sales conversation. 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
The model is public — monthly rent based on employee count and modules, 30-day free trial, an acknowledged one-time setup fee and multi-module discounts — but not a single euro figure for any tier, module, setup fee or minimum appears. An HR lead cannot compute even a rough annual invoice from these pages. 2 1
The IT Integrator
The pricing page discloses the shape of the invoice — module- and user-based monthly rent, a one-time setup fee, term and multi-module discounts, a 30-day trial — but not one euro figure survives into the evidence, and the API itself is an 'optional' line item with no price. An HR lead cannot compute the annual invoice from these pages; they can only start a sales conversation. 2 1
The Skeptic
The pricing page publishes the shape of the invoice — monthly rent per employee and module, an unquantified "Einrichtungs-pauschale", loyalty and multi-module discounts, optional add-ons — and not a single euro figure. Even the payroll interface and the API are "optional" lines with no numbers, so an HR lead can compute nothing beyond the 30-day trial. That is the no-public-prices anchor, with one courtesy point for at least describing the model. 2 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in AT ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | EU only ⚠ unverified | 2/2 pts | 4 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 11 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The footer lists office sites rather than a registry entry, but the imprint on the same page gives the same entity with Firmenbuch FN 188579 y, UID ATU50176900 and address A-1120 Wien.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. No hosting provider is named and no product subprocessor list is published (the data protection agreement is only available on request); the named US provider MailChimp/The Rocket Science Group and the analytics tools Matomo, Hotjar and Meta serve only the vendor's own website and newsletter, not customer data in the product.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 26 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 10 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.personalwolke.at Checked 15 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 11 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.personalwolke.at Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Imprint www.personalwolke.at Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.personalwolke.at Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap personalwolke.at Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Payroll handoff — found from sitemap personalwolke.at Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap personalwolke.at Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Absence & working-time — found from sitemap personalwolke.at Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap personalwolke.at Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Recruiting & onboarding — found from sitemap personalwolke.at Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap personalwolke.at Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Employee data protection & co-determination — found from sitemap personalwolke.at Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →